Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 July 6/Images

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
edit

Images

See the comments at the bottom of this list
The indented images below have been deleted, but not yet orphaned:- Kcordina Talk 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "amount and substantiality" test: Huge chunks of image galleries have been co-opted. (In some cases, I think the only thing stopping us from taking the whole gallery was the fact that some holy symbols were available in more than one gallery!)
  2. The transformative nature of the use: Wikipedia's use of most of these images is blatantly not transformative -- the images were created for use in encylopedic works about fictional worlds, and Wikipedia is using them for an encyclopedia entries about fictional worlds!
  3. The nature of the original work. The bar for "fair use" is much higher for fiction than non-fiction. This is also why I consider the Template:logo rationale used for some of these images bogus -- the images aren't being use to describe real organizations, they're being used to describe a fictional world. You need to do more than repeat the fictional details to constitute fair use of fictional material -- cut-and-paste won't cover it.
  4. Effect on the potential market of the original: The copyright owner on most of these illustrations (Wizards of the Coast) has a long history of selling encyclopedia-style books about their fictional worlds. Our encyclopedia is in almost-direct competition with theirs!

These images are failing at least 3 out of 4 of the standard tests. I think they've got to go, before the situation gets any worse. -- Michael Bauser 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support deleting these images and others taken from the wizards.com website per the wizards.com TOS. Unless Wikipedia gets explicit permission from Wizards of the Coast to use these images they should be deleted. --Muchness 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All websites with copyrighted promotional images say that you may not copy them for any reason. The entire purpose of the D&D website is to promote Dungeons & Dragons. What's the point of having a {{promotional}} tag when you can't even use it? Anyways, anyone can already easily find the images at the D&D website for free, so it's not like Wikipedia is taking anything away from Wizards of the Coast. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, JarlaxleArtemis fails to understand the nature of copyright and fair use. I'm getting tired of this willful ignorance—it was already the subject of two Requests for Arbitration and numerous short-term and permanent bannings. Please delete these images for the reasons cited. —Psychonaut 23:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, Psychonaut acts like a dick and tries to get non-copyvio images deleted so that he can feel important.
  • Look, can anyone read this excerpt from Template:Promotional:

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide source information as evidence of ownership.

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

  • Apparently everyone can read except for you. The images in question do not come from a press kit or similar source; in fact, the source explicitly forbids copying. I think you don't understand that the terms "publicity photo" and "press kit" apply only to items that are sent to reviewers and advertisers with the specific request (or at least intent) that they be reproduced. Graphics appearing on a website are not promotional images unless explicitly marked as such. For a real example of online promotional materials, see Democracy Now!'s publicity kit. —Psychonaut 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you understand the conjunction "such as." It says "such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." I think you are confusing "such as" with "limited to." "Such as" is used to give an example of something. Examples do not cover everything. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental attribute of a promotional photo is that it is intended to be widely reproduced. If the copyright holder forbids copying, then it can't be promotional material. --Carnildo 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. The images are clearly not intended to be used widely, and are therefore not promotional. They should be speedy-deleted for having the wrong license tag. Jkelly 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is not the purpose of fair use to overide the "all rights reserved" claim? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was explained above why these images are terrible candidates for any solid "fair use" defense. Jkelly 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images do not fall under the fair use provisions of promotional material. The images have not been released to promote D&D, they are used to decorate the WOTC website. Also, they are not low-resolution images, they are the originals, and furthermore, they are not being used to illustrate the work or product in question, they are being used to decorate the article. (Also, all of the reasons explained by Michael Bauser at the top of this discussion are spot on) I shall now begin the lengthy task of deleting them. The images have been deleted, I don't have the time at present to orphan them - have requested the help of User:Carnildo and User:OrphanBot to do the orphaning. Kcordina Talk 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the policy "to illustrate the work or product in question" don't we understand? Jason Palpatine 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_July_6/Images&oldid=1136460971"