Wikipedia:Fair use review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:FUR

WP:FUR redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.

On Wikipedia we have a considerable number of fair use images (see Category:Fair use images). Many of these images should not be on Wikipedia. This is because fair use is a specific legal doctrine that requires consideration of several factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Note that since the validity of fair use depends on the use of the image, and since the {{fairuse}} tag is deprecated, there should not be any images in Category:Fair use images directly; all should be in an appropriate subcategory (typically via the use of a different template).

Wikipedia frowns on the use of fair use. We are an encyclopedia that wishes to give free access to our content for everyone, commercial or non-commercial. Fair use should only be used under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.

Contents 1 Policy review 1.1 Useful tags 2 Images 2.1 10 March 2006 2.2 25 July 2006 2.3 26 July 2006 2.4 5 August 2006 2.5 1 November 2006 2.6 10 November 2006 2.7 16 November 2006 2.8 24 November 2006 2.9 5 january 2007 2.10 10 January 2007 2.11 27 January 2007 2.12 30 January 2007 2.13 2 February 2007 2.14 8 February 2007 2.15 27 February 2007 2.16 24 March 2007 2.17 26 March 2007

[edit] Policy review

This Wikipedia page is currently determining ways of reviewing the use of fair use, and whether a fair use claimed image should exist on Wikipedia. Please contribute to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use if you'd like to help.

[edit] Useful tags

(shamelessly copied from WikiProject Fair use)

• {{fairusereview}} – to mark questionable images for review
• {{fairusedisputed}} – to actively dispute fair use claims
• {{reviewedfairuse}} – to mark images which have been independently reviewed and deemed likely to be fair use
• {{fairusereplace}} – for images which could be reasonably re-created/replaced with free alternatives.
• {{fairusereduce}} – for large images which should be reduced in size and/or quality.
• {{subst:nsd}} – for images without a source listed
• {{subst:nld}} – for images without a licence listed

[edit] Images

This section will be to review existing fair use images and to see if they satisfy the Wikipedia fair use criteria.

[edit] 10 March 2006

• Image:Red rain Kerala.jpg, Image:Red rain Kerala optical microscope.jpg, Image:Red rain Kerala SEM.png, Image:Red rain Kerala TEM.png, Image:Chung negative resistance setup.png, Image:Chung negative resistor.png
  • Images from research papers, used to illustrate the subject of the papers. — Omegatron 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As the article discusses the research papers substantially, I think these images are ok (although they really should be tagged with a fair use template). Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know which template is appropriate. — Omegatron 09:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        • {{fairusein}}? Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The red rain ones are fine, since the phenomenon is not expected to repeat. (The images are, therefore, irreplaceable.) But the Chung ones are not. They are obviously replaceable, and anyone could create a diagram that would serve the same purpose in the article. I'm tagging those rfu. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 25 July 2006

Guys. I would appreciate an opinion on Image:ZBWE1.jpg regarding its copyright/Fair Use status. I am considering inserting it as the lead image in Whites in Zimbabwe. The image appeared on the cover of the Sunday Times (London) colour supplement on 25 March 1984. The copyrightholder is a well known photojournalist and I would give her a credit. See earlier comment by TheGrappler on my talk page. Bob BScar23625 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ps : This is proving to be a tricky one. The photographer is Mary Ellen Mark - a famous photojournalist. The library that manages her work (the Falklands library, New York) has been approached and has replied. The librarian, Meredith Lue (mlue@falkland.com), has never heard of Wikipedia. Bob BScar23625 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is fair use, even in the photographer's page. In the Whites in Zimbabwe article, it would definitely not be fair use, since it could be replaced by any pic of a white Zimbabean. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 26 July 2006

And speaking of the Devil ;-) I came across Image:Ted Williams Time Cover 1950.jpg - yes, it's a Time cover, and it's being used in a biographical infobox, and no, the "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic photograph" is obviously incorrect. Since I'm in two minds about taking this to IFD or just changing the tag to a more appropriate one, I'm bringing it here. I know that in all fair use claims there should be a full rationale stated and I really dont' feel comfortable with providing one for this image, whichever tag is used. Now, I know what User:Ta bu shi da yu would do... but I'd just like some slightly broader feedback before running off to WP:IFD! TheGrappler 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt the tag shoud be changed to {{Magazine cover}} because... it is a magazine cover. And regardless of the tag used, the image should be removed from Ted Williams because the article, as of the current version, do not even mentions the image. There is a chance that some editor will change the article, adding information about how important and historic this image is (see the 03 July 2006 discussion above), but it won't be hard to show that this information was created to justify the image presence. --Abu Badali 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the subject is deceased. So unless a free image of him exists (doubtful), any image we use will have to be fair use, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 August 2006

Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg This is from the Randall Flagg article. It shows a key point in the character's arc; namely, his death. Later, a disgruntled fan who ignored the spoiler warnings and saw the picture before reading the book wanted it removed and put it up for deletion. (Up until this point, there had been no problems with the image) No consensus was reached. Later, an administrator deleted it because he felt it was against WP:FUC#8: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose., saying that Flagg's death is described in the article enough and that it serves no purpose in the article. I'd like to keep the picture in the article, as I believe that it is important to Flagg's character and the page in general as a visual aid to that particular section.--CyberGhostface 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine this image under the lense of U.S fair use law. Factor #2 is "the nature of the copyrighted work". This image comes from a recent (2004) book that is still on the market. Factor #4 is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". Full color illustrations are available in the hardcover edition, not in cheaper paperback editions. In other words, paperback users can now get features of the hardcover for free off of Wikipedia. These two considerations are encapsulated very clearly in criterion #2 of official Wikipedia policy: "The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product." Now let's examine illustrator Michael Whelan's webpage. His FAQ states:

We receive numerous requests from fans every day asking to use Michael's images on their web pages. Unfortunately, Michael does not authorize free use of his images on either commercial or non-commercial web-sites. If you send a simple request as such, you will receive a form letter response politely declining your request.

He lists several reasons why this is. Among them:

As an illustrator, Michael makes his living by selling rights to reproduce his artwork, not only selling to primary but also reselling to secondary markets. If all of Michael's fans decided to post his artwork across the internet, it would dilute Michael's copyrights and make his work less marketable.

[Ex. Why would a publisher pay to use artwork that has already been used by thousands]. One site, of course, doesn't jeopardize Michael's copyrights in itself. One site violating copyright is, however, a rubber stamp for anyone who sees that site to do the same. Such is the nature of a mass medium like the internet.

Which essentially says what I have written above in different words. It's clear that including this image on Wikipedia is copyright infringement. The same goes for other Michael Whelan images. Punctured Bicycle 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems more to apply to his own art that he sells on his website. And he doesn't specifically own the art published in the Dark Tower series; that's copyrighted by Stephen King along with the rest of the Dark Tower series. --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Michael Whelan retains the rights to his images (the copyright page in the book probably says something like "Illustrations (C) 2004 Michael Whelan"). After all, he states in his FAQ that he resells his work to secondary markets. (If anyone besides Michael Whelan owns these images, it would likely be the publisher, not Stephen King.) Punctured Bicycle 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, guess what? Today he finally responded to my query with "Yeah, that's okay. Thanks for asking. It's a good article!"CyberGhostface 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The rationale seems pretty thin. The article is not about the image itself, the image could be replaced by a GFDL drawing by someone else, and the image doesn't add greatly to our understanding of the character. It's a nice picture - but we can't use it. Simple as that. Megapixie 09:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It illustrates a key event in the character's history (namely, his death). --DrBat 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to Michael Whelan as I think using pictures for an educational purpose is different. If he says no I will remove it.

Also, I recommend that you look at the Randall Flagg discussion page and see Punctured Bicycle's posts. The whole thing is just a sour grapes response because he got himself spoiled and nothing more complex than that. Obviously we shouldn't just post pictures willy nilly but if it represents an important part of the story then I think it should stay. For example, if we were to make an Eddie Dean article I wouldn't show every single picture of him but I would show one of him getting killed as its representative of his character.--CyberGhostface 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My objections to this image on the grounds that it reveals a major spoiler still stands. When you couple its spoiling nature with the fact that it is not essential to a free encyclopedia, having more decorative value than educational value (as I, Megapixie, and howcheng believe), it is clear that it should be deleted. However, the more serious problems with this image outlined above obviously trump all that. Please do look at my posts. You may also be interested in the history of the Randall Flagg article, where CyberGhostface labels my original removal of the image as vandalism, despite the fact that I brought the issue up on the talk page beforehand. Also see my talk page, where CyberGhostface calls me a "schlum" and has a generally uncivil tone towards me. Also view the history of the original image, Image:Flaggdeathx.jpg, where CyberGhostface reverts the image deletion template four times (a 3RR violation) despite the template specifically saying not to. Finally, you can see CyberGhostface misconstruing the story at User talk:howcheng: "The only reason why it was up for deletion was because someone foolishly ignored the spoiler warning and wanted to delete it because it spoiled something for him." Remember how I had to tell you to put spoiler templates up, because they weren't there? Punctured Bicycle 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you a "schlum". I was speaking in general terms. Maybe you fit that description because you foolishly browsed down an article describing a character and were shocked to discover his death was written, but there were no specific people in mind when I used that word. Furthermore, everyone else on the Randall Flagg discussion page all agreed that the image should stay yet PB wanted to remove without agreements from others for his own selfish reasons.--CyberGhostface 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedied as reupload of content previously deleted through Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please don't repost content removed through our deletion procedures. Jkelly 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Howcheng told me here[1] to reupload it for discussion. Later today I will upload it again until this is settled, preferably when Whelan responds to my request.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I reuploaded it under a different name. I will remove it if Michael Whelan tells me not to but I would prefer it to stay up until I get a response.--CyberGhostface 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 November 2006

Image:Duel98.jpg — I tagged this image before with bad fair use template, because this game cover is linked to a page not about the game. The page is about the author, and worse that the page contains many links to game covers. In the fair use rationale, it is said: "to illustrate the packaging of the game in question". The fact is that it is not. Could somebody take a look whether the fair use of the image is valid? I do think that this image fails several criteria of WP:FAIR, esp. that the image serves only as a decorative purpose in the article. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The image does seem to serve the purpose of illustrating the style of the artist. However there are far too many images on the page for purely that purpose. Two or at most three images would serve just as well to illustrate the style. Megapixie 13:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant. Fair images should be used minimally, right? — Indon (reply) — 09:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 November 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fso_prices2.png. While most of the image contains factual data (which is prob. not copyrightable), the layout may be. Because the factual information could be reproduced for the same effect, with only a low-res version of the image kept to prove the data's authenticity, I'm afraid this might not pass muster with fair use's unrepeatability requirement. Vpoko 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Fso_prices2.png" leads to [2] which is linked at "prices2" by the label, "Download high-resolution version (850x1100, 187 KB)". Scientology_as_a_business#External_links is where the image is used. It is one of five similar images. Terryeo 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In their current state of scan resolution, the scans are barely readable, so I think these surely pass "fair use" muster regardless of their size, actual or kilobyte. If there's still a concern, we could "optimize" the images to bring them to a smaller file size while maintaining their actual size. wikipediatrix 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that resolution, as it relates to images on a screen, is the height x width (number of pixels). File size doesn't have anything to do with it, an 1200x800 image has the same resolution whether it's 1kb or 100mb. Vpoko 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a little more complicated than that, but I only throw the suggestion out there as a way of possibly appeasing the powers that be. The spirit of "fair use" is to use images at such a resolution that they cannot be pirated, and there's no way anyone could usefully pirate this price list from these barely-readable scans. wikipediatrix 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 16 November 2006

• I tagged Image:Attloa.jpg for review. It's currently used to illustrate the DA article at the top. However it's a bookcover used under the bookcover fair use template which specifies it's intended to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. If this article covers the book in resonable detail (which it doesn't) it should be acceptable to used it under appropriate section. Alternatively, different fair use rationale may or may not apply (don't know much about that) but I don't think the current template is suitable given the way it's currently used Nil Einne 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Correct, it's being used to illustrate the person, not the book. Tagged rfu. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 November 2006

• Image:Hclplant-udl.jpg. I was about to tag this image as "replacable fair use", but then I noticed that it had previuosly been tagged with {{fairusereplace}} and this tag was removed because "(...)all hydrochloric acid plants will have either a designers copyright or an owners copyright, it is unlikely that a free picture can be made available to replace this picture. This production plant is very speficic.", the picture is used in Hydrochloric acid. I'm not aware of any special copyright to chemical plants vs. regular buildings so this sounds strange to me, but you never know so some outside input would be nice. --Sherool (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• A hydrochloric acid plant is not a building but a combination of very specific technologies. You cannot replace the picture with one of just any chemical plant. To elucidate this hydrochloric acid production technology in the hydrochloric acid article, the use of a picture is obvious. As typically pictures of chemical plants are very limitingly copyrighted, it is unexpected that any picture of it can be made available more free than this copyrighted but promotional (and therefore acceptable fair use) picture. Its fair use status has been asserted in previous discussion. Can't find the link, though. And to prevent any further discussion of this topic, I have asked the probable copyright owner for more free permission. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
  • I have copy-edited the text as well, to better present the current FU status, including an explicit rationale. I also added the appropriate Fair Use reference to the hydrochloric aicd article. Note that this picture, used in a Featured Article has been accepted as such already more than 1.5 year, well before Fair Use became a target of attention that it is today. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

Firstly, I don't understand why a user drawn diagram of one couldn't serve exactly the same purpose ? Secondly, it seems unlikely that the photographic appearance of a piece of industrial equipment would be protected by copyright, we're not talking about scuplture here — an object whose primary purpose is its appearance.

Can you link to, or point me to somewhere that explains this copyright restriction for industrial machinary ? I don't see the difference between a photograph of this and say a Combine harvester or a internal combustion engine.

Thirdly, I'm sure the process has been patented, we can normally use the images from US patents (as long as there are no restrictions stated in the patent themselves). Megapixie 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think whether a diagram can be used or not is relevant to the Fair Use status of this picture.
  • Photographs of industrial equipment are simply not published anywhere. Owners don't want photographic information of their equipment available to others. Remember that industrial oneupmanship is often the result of technological advantages, e.g., by better combination of various technologies. Anyone walking by a harvester in a field, or opening up his/her car hood can take a private picture the harvester or the engine. No one can privately walk on a chemical industrial area and take a picture of a hydrochloric acid plant. That makes such pictures very hard (impossible) to come by. The UDL promo-picture is therefore an exception to the rule. (Note the lack of chemical installation pictures in oil refinery, cracking (chemistry), Chlorine#Mercury cell electrolysis and sulfuric acid, the most produced chemical compound in the world)
  • The process cannot be patented: it is a combination of 'common technologies'. The only thinks you might be able to patent are details to the process not shown on this large scale. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

If we could replace the picture with a diagram - then it's absolutely relevant - see WP:FUC #1 - "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."

Agree that it might be hard (but probably not impossible) to get a free photograph of the same equipment - but it isn't important in the other articles for exactly the same reason it's not important here - we can convey the same information with a diagram (probably more clearly).

You can absolutely patent a common industrial process that consists of trivial steps - see [3], [4], etc Megapixie 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• The information conveyed in a actual photograph is, in my perception, totally different from a diagram. Even if a diagram would be a good addition to any article, it can not replace a picture. And yes, indeed you can put anything in a patent. That is fully true. But they aren't the kind of patents that a chemical industry is built on. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

I'm just not clear what you are saying. Could you make it clear what this photograph conveys that a diagram would not convey ? If it's the technical details of the process - i.e. pipe here, chamber here, etc - then a diagram would convey it a lot better than a tiny low resolution picture. Likewise the general appearance of the equipment in question could be conveyed in a diagram.

What exactly does a photograph convey that a diagram couldn't ? Megapixie 05:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• A photograph of a technical installation such as a chemical production plant shows the real implementation with all its technical achievements to get the real plant running, where a diagram shows merely the various process steps. They serve completely different purposes. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Could you be more specific ? It seems that a reader who is interested in how the process works would be more interested in a diagram illustrating the process (which they could re-use in their own work) than a low resolution photograph that they can't. A photograph that exactly three helpful labels (66 feet, splice plate, stair tower), two of which are completely obvious. Especially where it's actually impossible to make out any detail of the process or machinary involved - sure you can see the steel frame of the tower but nothing else. If the best argument you can muster is that a photograph is a photograph and a diagram is not a photograph then I'm sorry but that doesn't cut our fair use criteria.
  • If your argument is that this is showing some kind of pinacle of human achievement - then I'm sorry but the Eiffel Tower is a far more impressive structure at 15 times the size. And the far more important Oil refining process page seems to use a diagram to illustrate the process.
  • We simply don't need this mediocre unfree photograph. It neither informs the reader or illustrates something essential that cannot be conveyed in words - i.e. Image:The Persistence of Memory.jpg. Megapixie 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• You say no and I say yes. A rather balanced intermediate conclusion, isn't it? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You still haven't made clear why it can't be replaced by a diagram. Why can't it be replaced by a diagram ? You should be clear that the onus is on you to explain why it should be kept. Megapixie 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• I would also like to know what exactly the important information that his photo convey is. The caption tell us it's a Hydrochloric acid oven but all we rely see is a stair tower that's aparently 66 feet tall and aparently there is a "splice plate" (or some such, it's hard to read) in there somewhere. Maybe it's just me but my understanding of direct synthesis of hydrochloric acid is not exactly greatly enhanced by that photo. Even if it had been free licensed I would have prefered a generic diagram outlining the process over this, and fair use images are supposed to be used only when they add significantly to the article. --Sherool (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • I give in. Delete the darn picture, if you insist. If you can't or won't see the significant difference between a picture and a diagram, then I won't spent more time on this IMHO unpleasant discussion. And feel free to gloat over the fact that you have 'improved Wikipedia': in my perception all these negative actions are NOT contributory to the success of wikipedia, merely to aggravate people who do actually contribute content to Wikipedia. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC).
      • I do get that there is a significant difference between the photo an a diagram. I just don't agree that the photo adds a lot of unique information to the article that can not (probably better) be provided thought other means. sorry if you feel this has been a waste of time. --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 january 2007

1. Image:VforVendettaNorsefire.jpg is tagged as fair use, but it fails criterion #8 that it only serves as decorative purpose. Furthermore, the image was taken not from the official source, as noted that it is a promotional usage, but from third party website: http://www.joblo.com/upcomingmovies/oneimage.php?id=44045&movie_id=465, which states clearly that "No other uses are permitted without the prior written consent of owner." I am asking for an independent review. — Indon (reply) — 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be fine at V for Vendetta (film), since it's illustrating the use of red and black as it's discussed in the article. In Norsefire and Adam Susan, it violates criterion #3, along with Image:Sutler2.jpg since only one of those images is necessary to illustrate the subject. Either one works at Norsefire, but the other image works better at Adam Susan since he's more visible. As far as consent of the owner, it appears that the image is incorrectly tagged and that {{film-screenshot}} would be more appropriate. —ShadowHalo 06:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo is entirely correct. Also, the copyright of the image does not belong to the third-party website, but to the copyright-holders of the film itself (Warner Bros). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 January 2007

• Image:TIME Magazine 23 October 2006 Barack Obama.jpg
• Image:Obama vs. Hillary.jpg

Requesting that someone more in the know than I look at the usage of these two images and deem whether or not they are used properly in accordance with appropriate guidelines. --Bob 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think they are both OK. The first is referenced in "In his October 2006 Time magazine cover story, Primary Colors author Joe Klein compared the cultural sources of Obama's rapid rise and crossover appeal to those of U.S. celebrity icons Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan.", and the second is referenced in "In a December 2006 cover story headlined "The Race is On", Newsweek magazine columnist Jonathan Alter asked: "Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?". So both are used to illustrate the article in question (not just the subject of the article), thus they fall under fair use for magazine covers. Herostratus 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 27 January 2007

• Image:Snltracymorgandvd.jpg

A DVD cover, that is only used in the article about the person on the cover (Tracy Morgan) to illustrate the person. I think it fails criteria 1 and 8 of the fair use criteria. --88.134.44.28 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Correct. This would be usable in an article about the DVD, but not in article about the person. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30 January 2007

• Image:VigilSash45degrees.png

Listed as free use, but probably falls under {{scoutlogo}} fair use. --NThurston 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it, and the image it was modified from, accordingly. Jkelly 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with the image as it stands. It shouldn't be being used in user space at all (see WP:Fairuse#Policy 9) also it doesn't actually appear to be being used in articles (7). There is no rationale provided for it's use anywhere (10) and there is no attribution of source (also 10). I'm going to notify the uploader and tag as fairusedisputed. Megapixie 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Megapixie is correct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 February 2007

• Image:USA Mens National Team.jpg -- This is a photo of the starting lineup of the United States men's national soccer team in the 2006 World Cup against Italy. As it's being used in the article, I think this is a violation of WP:FUC #8. It serves only a decorative purpose, as there are no specific points being made about this exact lineup. It could be easily replaced by a photo of the starting lineup in one of the team's other matches, or action shots from any of the matches, or even a photo of some of the team members training in preparation for the World Cup. Other editors of the page, however, are not so receptive to my arguments and suggested getting outside opinions, so here I am. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Howcheng makes some good points. However the photo is used in a section about the 2006 team, and since 2006 is over, no further photos of the 2006 team can be produced. (That really only explains why it passes FUC#1, not #8. I'll leave it to others to decide if the image is serving an informational or decorative purpose.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied this. It was from International Sports Images -- a stock photography provider. While it's great to have thoughtful discussions about whether or not an image is replaceable, meets our criteria, etc., the "taking an image from someone who sells the image to be republished on websites and then republishing it on our website" is an electric fence. Please speedy any images that come from Getty, Corbis, or any other similar business. Jkelly 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused here. I uploaded this from and tagged it (Promophoto from http://www.ussoccer.com/sights/index.jsp# Gallery: MNT vs. Italy I - 06-17-2006 The USA's Starting XI vs. Italy. © Brad Smith / International Sports Images) on 8 August 2006. If it should never have been uploaded in the first flace I truly am sorry and appologize for all this trouble. But, as a side question, I never hid the source of the image and International Sports Images was clearly there in the tag, so why wasn't this ever speedied before? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer is probably a combination of 1) the fact that it was sourced to the website that had licensed it from ISI was checked more carefully than the (correct) copyright notice, 2) ISI isn't a well-known stock photo seller the way Getty or Corbis is, and, 3) we've gotten really focused on things like "replaceability" and "critical commentary", because "impact on the commercial activity of the copyright holder" comes up so rarely. Jkelly 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't recognize ISI as a photo agency. Otherwise I would have speedied it myself. howcheng {chat} 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means it failed FUC#2, fwiw. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8 February 2007

RBD

There's an audio sample box with samples of sixteen different songs, most of which are only briefly mentioned, if at all. For example, "Wanna Play" is mentioned only in the navigational template. ShadowHalo 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 27 February 2007

Barack Obama uses Image:Obama 08.JPG, which I believe could be replaced with Image:Obamaaustin.jpg. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Obamaaustin.jpg is not an adequate replacement for Image:Obama 08.JPG. Also, Sen. Obama's campaign site contains a Creative Commons notice at the bottom of its pages. There is an ongoing discussion on this matter at Talk:Barack Obama, which User:Hipocrite is choosing to ignore. Italiavivi 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid replacement. --MECU≈talk 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? The images both are illustrate his 08 presidental campaign. One is free, one is fair. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Obama 08.JPG is a logo. It is impossible to recreate a logo freely. If you go take an image of this logo somewhere, you can't release it under the GFDL. I disagree that any free image of the subject "represents the 08 Presidential Campaign" as well as the logo or in the same manner as the logo. --MECU≈talk 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree, MECU. Italiavivi 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 March 2007

Image:Phoenix lights first 1 daily.jpg ... someone has requested a review of this picture and I as the uploader belive this image coincides with the phoenix lights event which i consider this a major event in history, so I have to disagree with you there, and also I feel it does help add significance to the article by showing a report on the incident (:O)-Nima Baghaei (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 26 March 2007

• Christina Aguilera A back-and-forth between unfree images, such as screenshots and album covers, to illustrate sections where there are many free images available at the Commons. ShadowHalo 08:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Today's foundation policy release makes this quite clear: the non-free images cannot be used if there are free replacements. --Carnildo 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Fortsaginawscotts.jpg This image was scanned from a 1960s tourism pamphlet for Saginaw, Michigan, and the pamphlet doesn't seem to have a copyright anywhere on it. This is the only way that I can provide an image of the mall's interior, seeing as Fort Saginaw Mall has been boarded up for about ten years now. TenPoundHammer 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)