Lack of specific wording
This policy has been a source of numerous debates and quite a bit of animosity and resultant edit wars. I believe it is mainly due to a major flaw in the enforcement of the policy: nowhere is it detailed what constitutes the minimal usage described in criterion 3a, and it is inevitable that different people have different opinions regarding what is minimal . So when an editor (admin or not) comes along to enforce policy, it is necessarily up to his/her interpretation of policy to define his/her subsequent actions with respect to the article in question. So my point is this: either this policy needs specific, unambiguous wording detailing what constitutes minimal usage, or enforcement must be approached from a discursive standpoint, rather than the draconian, dichotomous perspective that seems to pervade the mentalities of administrators dealing with this issue. Eganio Talk 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for Top lists
I propose that we specifically permit the inclusion of lists from such sources as The 100 , as appropriate fair use.
Let's review the four factors:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Wikipedia is of course a nonprofit educational use.
- This isn't directly relevant, so I'm removing if from this discussion.
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- These are simply lists of very well-known personalities that are arranged in a particular order.
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- These lists are found in books with many long biographical essays justifying each subject's importance, in the author's own style and view of the world. Effectively, we are only including the chapter titles.
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- It can only have a promotional effect, which is why these works tend to be put out with press releases of the list. Publishers indeed sometimes include the whole list online for promotional reasons. The promotional effect is especially true for many less famous lists we might include on Wikipedia, which would have almost no other reference online.
Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of Wikipedia is non-profit, but we permit commercial use. I'm sorry, but this isn't going to fly. A common error here is the idea that what we're building is only for Wikipedia. That isn't true. Also, we do not need to reproduce the entire list of "The 100" in order to generate an encyclopedic entry for it. Having the last 85 of the list does not inherently generate something more encyclopedic than that which we already have. It just isn't necessary to understand the topic of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Basically you got all the four factors here wrong. Not fair use. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
An alternative way to approach this is to list the contents of such lists in alphabetical order. You are then stating that person X appeared in this "top 100" list, but we are not stating where they appeared on the list (which is the creative bit we are not allowed to copy). This still allows people to go from the list article to the article about the person, where it is OK to have a sentence saying that "person X was Yth in this list". This way we are not reproducing the order of the list (the creative bit), but only the factual bit (who was on the list). People can go to the external links and the website in question (if one exists) to find out what the order of the list was. The only question then left to answer is whether the "top 100" list in question is notable enough for Wikipedia. If not, it may need to be merged or deleted. For example, if I made an alphabetical list in my userspace of the people on Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, with the intention of filling out the redlinks, would that be OK (yes, I know there are no redlinks)? The same is true of any other list. For example, lists of award winners. If you list the content in a factual, non-creative order (alphabetical, in this case; chronological for award winners), then the issue of fair-use goes away. As long as you don't reproduce the creative bit (which is the order) then it should be fine. Whether or not the inclusion in such a list is also creative, or whether this is just factual data that we can source like any other factual data, might be debatable. Anyone have any views on this? This can be summarised as:
- Each article on the Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century people states they are in this list. Nothing else needs doing.
- The Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century article gives the people on the list in alphabetical order. Not acceptable because the original list is alphabetical in five topic areas.
- 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written
- The 50 Greatest Cartoons
- Times Top 100 Graduate Employers
- The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time
- Top 10 best selling cars in Britain
- Your Sinclair official top 100
- And so on, and so on...
See Category:Top lists for more. So, which of these is acceptable, if any? Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuzzy change of wording at "Enforcement"
"*An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale , or a suitable rationale added ."
I've bolded the bit that has recently been inserted. I don't understand what it means. The grammar's not right in any case. Can someone explain the intention so we can fix the wording? TONY (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use review#Image:Kirby hobo festival.jpg
Can I get a few other sets of eyes at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Image:Kirby hobo festival.jpg? It's not really a productive discussion right now with just two users involved. The argunent is whether a poster about this year's first annual hobo day of a town is historically important and whether the description there qualifies as commentary per the fair use guidelines. Metros (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Question
There's a question I've asked at WT:CITE that watchers of this page might be able to answer. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Non-free allowed in
Template:Non-free allowed in has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — figure this is probably the best place to give notification, since it works under the claim of enforcing WP:NONFREE. Collectonian (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Guideline with a policy in it...
I don't mean to sound as negative as it probably does but people have a hard enough time understanding the difference between a policy, guideline, and an essay. Rather than mixing two in this page, a general discussion of what non-free content is and when to use it here could link to the actual fair use criteria policy like this:
- If you determine the content you intend to add fits these prerequisites then make sure all relevant points of our free use criteria are addressed under the Permission field when uploading. Anynobody 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Criterion 2—two problems in the wording
When I drove the overhaul of the criteria last May, I might have been blind to the fact that 2 says:
Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
(My italics)
I'd have thought the legal environment was such that this should be tightened to:
Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that
is likely to replacemay in any way reduce the market role of the original copyrighted media.
- It is very easy for a wilful editor to argue that their use of NFC does not replace the market role (all or nothing concept, replace—sounds like taking over completely the market role); it is far harder to argue that such use does not infringe the role.
- Can someone explain the meaning of "the original market role"? It seems to me that it could be construed as meaning the market role of the item when it originally hit the market (say, 40 years ago, but not now—significantly weakening the application of the principle here). Thus, why are there two occurrences of "original" in this clause? TONY (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that "replace" is loose wording, but "infringe" requires someone to demonstrate infringement, which is much harder. Arguably, the pictures at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and
RSVP Card - Examples of Wedding Invitation Wording for response cards
Thank You Cards Wedding Programs: Flower Seed Paper ... samples as a starting place for your response card wording. ... Reply Card
Wedding RSVPs – The Etiquette of Response Cards, and Response Card ...
Wondering how to get guests to RSVP to your wedding? The common way to do so is to include a response card or reply card with your invitation. Here's advice as to what should a ...
RSVP cards,RSVP reply cards,printable RSVP cards,RSVP Cards from ...
RSVP cards,RSVP cards wording,RSVP post cards,RSVP wedding cars wordings, RSVP cards sample,RSVP wedding cards invitation,cards post RSVP wedding,RSVP reply cards,cards example ...
Reply Cards - Examples of Wedding Invitation Wording for response ...
Reply Cards - Examples of response card wording in postcard style
Reply cards - Templates - Microsoft Office Online
Wedding response card Version: Word 2000 or later Downloads: 99187 Rating: (342 votes) ... Wedding reply card (Tapestry design, horizontal border, for commercial printing)
Basic Wedding Invitation Wording - A Guide to Writing Your Wedding ...
A Guide to Writing Your Wedding Invitation Wording. By Nina Callaway, About.com Guide ... find that they get responses more promptly if they include a separate reply card.
Reply Card Wording and Wedding Stationery Etiquette
Information and help on wording your reply cards and other wedding stationery
Wedding Invitation Wording - Simple Wedding Invites
Quality Wedding Invitations. Fast Service. Low Prices. You get to design the Perfect Wedding Invitation for Your Wedding! Printed in black and white or color ink on a classy paper ...
Help! Wedding card wording
All Forums >>[Discussion] >>General Chit Chat >>Help! Wedding card wording ... Reply to Message Post New Poll Submit Vote Delete My Own Post Delete My Own Thread
Wedding Response Card Wording – Reply Card Wording For A Wedding ...
Wedding Response Card Wording – Find Out How To Word Reply Cards For Wedding Invitations. Get Sample Wedding Response Card Wording And The Proper Etiquette For Wording Wedding ...