Wikipedia talk:Fair use overuse

Quote

Quote: Q: The prior debate on episode screen shots and discographies is not the same as this! This is a new debate, and needs to be decided on consensus!
A: While some might disagree, the issues are the same on a fundamental basis. The overuse of fair use images does not contribute to our mission. We must limit copyrighted material use as much as possible in order to further our progress towards our goals.

Hi Durin,

I just want to discuss the removal of images from the discography for Crowded House. While I generally agree with not including images in a discography, there was a specific reason given for why these images belonged together. This is because of the common artist, who is a member of the band in this case (Nick Seymour). The reason this is notable because of the distinct design style used and by not being able to display these images in one central place takes away from the viewer's capacity to see the common style held amongst these images/covers. I intend to place the images back as their fair use is consistent, and in this case as there is a rationale for their use in the discography as well as in the article space is defined. Although I understand the need for a superset of rules that exceeds that of the law, this is with the superset's rules, and failing that, WP:IAR indicates that if any policy is inhibiting the practice of putting together a cohesive encyclopedia to ignore said rules, which I believe isn't necessary in this case as it fits within the rules, but I will draw attention to that if you don't believe that these imaes inclusions pass for the fair use guidelines.

Should you still not agree, my final alternative would be to create a common image providing a comparison of the images (such as is done where the Beatles Anthology album covers were merged, or where the fourfold covers of Famous Last Words were merged and shown together, so there's a precedence of this being done on high traffic pages).

My hope is that you agree with the first proposal as it's a simple re-inclusion, but failing that, the second option is "acceptable", though not optimal.

Regards, --linca^linca 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"FAQ"

I have to say, as an old debater, I'm familiar with the technique of the purported FAQ. Asking and answering your own questions is spin.

Here is a question. Are you a Wikipedia Foundation member, or serving in a spokesperson capacity? --69.22.254.111 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The questions on the FAQ are slight re-wordings of actual defenses of the use of fair use images in these ways. No, I'm not part of the Foundation and I am not a spokesperson for them. --Durin 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On that note - the way you are adding in the link to this page on comments, at least to me, makes it sound like this page will be an official explanation of the rules, rather than a personal take on them (no matter how well-reasoned). I'm not sure how you could change this, but it does seem to be falsely giving the sense of authority.

Also, in some cases, like Bijuu, the articles profit greatly from the image - in this instance, we are specifically dealing with fantastic beasts, and so it's not that hard to assume that the reader would require a visual aid to understand what is going on. If I could make a suggestion, could you bring the matter up on talk pages before gutting the article, at least for images that are not clear violations (such as the previously mentioned episode articles)? Thanks.KrytenKoro 06:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• We've debated this issue multiple, multiple times. To invite debate over and over and over again essentially makes the task of bring en.wikipedia into compliance with Foundation directives impossible. It is hard enough to explain the issue when bumps in the road happen. Inviting debate on the issue at every turn means we won't be doing this. --Durin 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're aware that the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy never uses the words "as little as possible", never uses the words "necessary" or "essential", etc.•Jim62sch• 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• But policy does, and is descendant of Foundation directives both this year and in the past. Local projects are expected to hammer out the details. The Foundation does not wish to engage in granularity of this level (and for good reason). --Durin 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate fair use, I'm just wondering if all the exclamation points and "This is silly!"s and "That's impossible!"s are really necessary in the FAQ. It obviously makes your arguments more persuasive when they're juxtaposed with someone who apparently can't stop yelling and screaming like an irate 5 year old but it hardly seems fair or objective. It should only take a minute to change, and since people are apparently invoking this in edit summaries as a pseudo-policy/guideline it would be nice if such obvious bias was removed (if only to minimize the potential for more endless debates). Obviously you don't have to change it since this is part of your userpage, but since it seems you like to follow Wikipedia policies you might agree that it would be nice if this was NPOV. You make your point very well and I personally think a tactic like this just damages the credibility of the essay. Thanks. --TM 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Convoluted wording?

Is there a reason for saying "Insulting these people will result in decidedly negative outcomes for your editing privileges if you persist in insulting them." - why not just say people can be blocked for personal attacks? Carcharoth 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clunky Human Disease (CHD). :) The intent was to convey that repeated personal attacks would not be tolerated, as opposed to singular attacks. I'm tolerant of singular attacks. --Durin 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia space?

Would you ever consider moving this and related guidelines to Wikipedia space? In userspace, it can feel more like a personal agenda, and it can also inhibit other people editing the guidelines, and it can seem less official. There are some very good points made here, but it could probably do with more eyes looking at it and contributing to it. Carcharoth 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. I don't have any problems with that. A similar thing was done with User:Durin/Removal of fair use images to Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images, though I still link to my local copy in edit summaries. Not sure how much the project space version is used. There's nothing on the talk page, and no edits since April. *shrug* It'd be nice if this particular essay had more force behind it, and project space might help that. --Durin 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Superset vs subset?

I noticed while reading through this that you mention two times about Wikipedia policy being a "superset" of Fair Use law. However, this implies that Wikipedia policy actually extends beyond Fair Use law, rather than being a lesser set of it, as the context implies. Did you just slip up in your use of "superset" (instead intending to use "subset"), or am I missing some application or definition of the word? —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

The "Other Wikipedias" section appears to be factually incorrect, at least when looking at m:Fair use. A large majority of other wikipedias listed there, allow for fair use images, and it is certainly not the case that all other wikipedias disallow non-free content. — PyTom (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Currency notes

An editor has recently been going around removing images of currency notes from currency pages with the laconic justification of WP:OVERUSE. This seems a severe stretch of the policy essay as stated here: eg. in the specific case of Indonesian rupiah, there are no individual pages for the various notes, which means that the images cannot be used anywhere else either. As the policy essay says, "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice", but obviously an image of one note is not at all sufficient for illustrating a series of notes. Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51#Currency notes. In short, there is absolutely no consensus that this is overuse, and arguably a consensus that illustrating currency articles with fair use images of notes is entirely acceptable. Jpatokal (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-read that, mass usage of non-free content is not allowed. please take this to the policy talk page, this is not the right venue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)