Commons talk:Fair use

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg This page is for discussing improvements to Commons:Fair use. For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Fair use may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Fair use}}.


Company Logo Policy is UTTERLY confusing[edit]

So what is the deal with uploading the logo of a notable US company for its wikipedia page if you are the owner of that logo and give permission? I've seen company logos hosted in the commons on ALL SORTS of other company wikipedia pages, but according to guides like this one, all those logos should be "speedily deleted." What is the real story here, and how does a contributor contribute "properly?" --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the following template, Template:Logo_fur, makes it seem like it is ok to upload non-free media/non-free logos. Since many non-free company logos exist in the commons, they must have been uploaded somehow, and this guide may be inaccurate. --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Logo_fur has been deleted; it was indeed inappropriate to upload images here based on a Fair Use rationale.--Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

enwiki[edit]

...is not the only project. This needs to be generalized accordingly.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Double Standard[edit]

I've found fair use material uploaded to Wikipedia (this, for example). Why hasn't it been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantfindanunusedusername (talk • contribs) 06:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, maybe because they allow fair use? This page is for Commons, not the English Wikipedia. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

Ought there be another input option for non-free logos if in fact File:The Microsoft logo & slogan.png is properly licensed and uploaded? -- Ke4roh (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not at all clear how to properly upload company logos, even if you are the owner! --Nhtahoe (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No; read the page the logo is on. There is no FUR. It's NOT allowed here here based on a Fair Use Rationale. It's allowed here here based on it not being protected by copyright law. --Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Title of the policy[edit]

The term fair-use seems US-centric. The Wikimedia Foundation uses another term, EDP (see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy). --Eleassar (t/p) 11:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. What wording change do you propose?--Elvey (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

CommonPedia[edit]

Fair use is needed in articles, mainly for logos and similar. Are allowed in English Wikipedia, but the same image cannot be used in Spanish Wikipedia. So suggest create CommonPedia, to use language Wikipedia images in other language Wikipedia.--Diamondland (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia could have an EDP (see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy). That's a better solution, and uses already exiting framework. As the policy states, "If you are unable to persuade your local wiki community to adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy then there is no option but to try to find replacement files that are free."--Elvey (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussions on Commons processes[edit]

Per discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, specifically at the Meta discussion about Commons thread, I wish to add some amendatory language concerning the use of small quotations as fair use when discussing Commons internal processes. I realize this might go against the letter of the Resolution:Licensing policy, but I believe it to be in the spirit of the resolution as it seems to speak more about the use of media files on Wikimedia Commons. The problem would probably be drafting an appropriate exemption doctrine policy that would appear not to "erode or circumvent" the policy handed down by the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing resolution. As it stands, we run the risk of copyright infringement even when we copy snippets of legal opinions published on other websites, yet they are central to our self-determination on how to run Commons properly, effectively and efficiently. And currently, the quote at Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? is a likely copyright infringement... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether we have a policy page allowing quotes does not affect whether they actually infringe copyright, so that is no reason to change the policy. I agree that using quotes on fair use grounds on Commons does seem to conflict with the letter of the WMF's licensing resolution. Whether this is what they intended is unclear to me. I think the best thing to do would be to contact the WMF and ask them to clarify this. An EDP is not an option, since the licensing resolution explicitly prohibits Commons from having one. Amending this policy to allow the quotes does not seem much better, at least not without some change or clarification of the WMF's position, because it would directly circumvent the licensing resolution. --Avenue (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi @TeleComNasSprVen:! Per the licensing policy, EDPs are not allowed for Wikimedia Commons - that is pretty clear and explicit, and only the board can change that.
It is worth noting that the quote from Cornell Law in the article you cited is not a good example of why an EDP might be necessary. Despite being on the Cornell website, the "notes" on the U.S. Code that are quoted are themselves a US government work, and are therefore in the public domain, just like the statute itself. As Cornell’s Terms of Use states “[i]n those cases where the underlying texts are government documents, those texts lie in the public domain. The LII does not assert copyright in US Government works [...].” As the material is in the public domain, there is no infringement and the requirements of the licensing policy are met. Thus, no need for an EDP. Hope that clarifies! —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response @Luis Villa and JTam. It was mostly that quote that I was most concerned with; to date, most quotes I've seen used around our discussion forums are small enough that they might warrant de minimis in terms of copyright law. I agree the example quote I used was not very good, but I'm not sure of an appropriate length quote that might have been copied verbatim enough to breach regular copyright rules, especially around Commons meta-discussion forums (and I haven't been around long enough to check all such quotes). Nevertheless, since these are mostly covered by de minimis, I'm no longer convinced most such quotes are worth the pursuit of an EDP to substantiate their inclusion here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Luis Villa, I found a case that I believe you might be interested in: this discussion contains a verbatim copy of an email reply, which may be copyrighted but is also necessary for internal Commons commentary. Do you think such email replies are eligible for copyright? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: Thanks for your continued concern about this issue. Unfortunately, we really can't answer every single question about specific examples like this one - it isn't a good use of our time, and the community correctly handles most of them.
More generally, there is no single good rule of thumb that you can apply to these sorts of issues. A very short section from a very factual email with little or no commercial value can likely be excerpted at great length; at the same time, a very short section from a very creative work of art with lots of commercial value might be strongly protected. (See w:Harper & Row v. NationEnterprises). So the best thing you can do when you see examples like this is to continue to use good judgment, and remove, paraphrase, or get permission from the author as appropriate. Sorry I can't be more useful.—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


What about a "Fair Use" designated image on a U.S. government site?[edit]

{{helpme}}

What about a "Fair Use" designated image on a U.S. government site?

I am referring to a state of Maryland (USA) image, designated as "Fair Use". Thanks! Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No Fairuse on Commons whatever the source, US federal works are often PD, however that of individual states varies. If there is a specific wikipedia article you wish to use the file on see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content.--KTo288 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)