- File:Windows 7 Action Center.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|article)
A slightly unusual DRV, in that there hasn't been an IfD, and what has been deleted isn't the image outright, but all previously uploaded versions larger than 400x295 px. Nevertheless, this would seem to be the appropriate forum to seek review and wider input.
The image is a screenshot, for the Security Center in the latest version of Windows. The issue that I have with the 400x295 px version is that I simply can't easily read the text of this reduced-sized version. So that's why I (following in the tracks of several others) reverted to a slightly larger native-resolution version at about 550px wide, with the effect that the text became clear and sharp and easily readable. Those readable versions have now been systematically removed from the upload history.
Per recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Computer_screenshots, my understanding is that fair use requires us to take "no more than needed to achieve the purpose". In this case, making the text really difficult to decipher means that the reduced image is not achieving the purpose.
(It is also questionable whether, for what is basically an image of text, changing the resolution makes any difference to the degree of copyright taking; so whether enforcing this change serves any legal rationale at all).
I'd therefore like to see an older version of this image undeleted, that is straightforwardly readable. Jheald (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and use slightly larger version. Setting a random resolution that doesn't take into account the picture in question doesn't help. The idea that the fair use requires "no more than needed to achieve the purpose" is perfectly reasonable. Without the ability to read the contents, the image becomes a piece of decoration rather than an informative image. There's nothing against minimalisation, but it should stop at the point where it becomes hard to read. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion (as the admin who deleted the high-res versions). The stated purpose of the image in the rationale is "To display the new Windows 7 Action Center". All the image is intended to do is to show what the Action Center looks like; the words on the page don't need to be readable to achieve that purpose, so the low-res version is preferable. Note that even the currently used version is greater than the 0.1 megapixel guideline for nonfree images. —Angr 11:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to Angr for missing out that step. Given that he'd made the deletion in full awareness of the extensive back-and-forth on the page history, had previously made a similar deletion on 23 January, and would already have seen in the edit summary as to why the version he was deleting had previously been restored, I thought he was unlikely to change his mind. But my sincere apologies for the breach in etiquette. Jheald (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't offended. If you had asked me directly before coming to DRV, I would have said what I said just above, and we'd probably be here now anyway. —Angr 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I would overturn as the image doesn't serve a purpose when it has been sized down so much, and open a discussion on the File talk page to determine exactly what size is best. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; review creator is right, if you can't read the text, it isn't serving its purpose. IAR is applicable in cases like this, in which it's okay to have an image that slightly violates the size restriction that does serve a purpose, as opposed to a small image that doesn't. No opinion on fair use rationale. Sceptre (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, if anything, the image in its current state doesn't "display the new Windows 7 Action Center" since the words on the page are inherent to the content. Without words, the rational would have to be something along the lines of "display the layout of the new Windows 7 Action Center". If the fair use rational is accepted the picture needs to be in a format where it can accomplish this - otherwise it should be deleted altogether (I reserve comment on whether the FU rational is acceptable since I do not have sufficient experience with IfD). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the size seems required for the goals stated. The deleting admin has a good argument, but it seems clear to me that being able to read the text is relevant here. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with a preference to restoring the version "17 January 2009 . . MikeRS (Talk | contribs | block) 583×453 (140,529 bytes)" which seems large enough to make it useable for the stated goal. I note on reading through the discussions over the past 4 years on non-free reduction here, that the size to reduce to has always been a bone of contention, so the outcome of this should not be seen as overturning an improper action but simply bringing a bit of clarity to a murky process - Peripitus (Talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; deleting high-res versions of screenshots that have mostly text, in favour of low-res versions that are unreadable is a misapplication of WP:FU that makes the encyclopedia worse for no particular reason. Bear in mind that the copyright that companies who product software care about almost universally applies to the software, not a screenshot thereof. Screenshots of software do not replace a market role of the software itself. Warren -talk- 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would support overturning to restore the 583px wide version, but I think the 939px width should stay deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 583px width is sufficient. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently I need a better monitor because I can't see any of it. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an LCD screen, don't know if that makes a difference.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have your monitor set to 640x480? --B (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1280x1024, actually. :-) I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a more-readable image available -- just that the existing image is clear enough to serve the purpose, so the decision to delete wasn't incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can actually read it on my new monitor. But just barely. Still think the larger one should be restored. But I agree, no blame to the closer, it seems monitors play a role in the perception of what's readable. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I can actually read this on my monitor (albeit with effort) but I have a new monitor at a high resolution - I can easily see how it would be unreadable on a lot of systems. Exxolon (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine trying to read it on a high-DPI device like an iPhone or many newer laptops... you'd zoom in to read the text more clearly and you wouldn't get higher fidelity. Really, honestly, we shouldn't be making our readers struggle to read something because of some hare-brained notion that lower resolutions of screenshots will protect us from copyright problems where a high-resolution one will expose us to copyright problems. Warren -talk- 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Warren is correct. The "only high enough resolution as to do its job" was meant partially as a policy based incentive to substitute free content for non-free content, so there is a normative goal in keeping resolution low. However, the companion goal was to meet (roughly) the fair use exemption law--a lower resolution still would not compete with the original image. For cases like Tennis Girl this is very important. A high resolution image would compete with the copyright owner's right to sell the image in large or small scale reproductions. For a case like this, where the copyright owner is likely to assert copyright to the software more than the image, this concern is minimized. IANAL, but that seems reasonable to me, and we should seek to be reasonable about things. Returning to the original justification, the article is improved by the image only insofar as a reader can actually see it. We do no justice (And poorly justify the FUR) when the image is so low-rez as to essentially be decorative. I would support enlarging this image to whatever size it needs to be in order to be readable on a variety of screens. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
