Dispatches

Dispatches: Reviewing free images

Wikipedia's best articles are often enhanced by images. Indeed, the featured article criteria ask for "images and other media where appropriate" and that, as for the use of all images in Wikipedia, they should have "acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Similarly, the good article criteria require that images be "tagged with their copyright status" and that valid fair use rationales be provided for non-free content.

Images on Wikipedia are classified as either "free" or "non-free":

This dispatch discusses free images, and explains how to ascertain whether or not an image is actually free. A future Dispatch will cover the use of non-free images.

Although all Wikipedia content is expected to have acceptable copyright status, featured article candidates receive particular scrutiny for compliance with the image usage policy. Examining image licenses is not always straightforward. Ultimately, it is a matter of confirming that a copyright tag is present and that the information provided is sufficient to corroborate the tag that has been selected.

Copyright is a legal protection granting the creator of an original work – for our purposes here, an image – exclusive rights to that work. These rights prevent others from copying, redistributing or modifying the image without the author's permission. Copyright is generated automatically on the creation of such a work.

Copyright holders may choose to relinquish some or all of their rights, for example, by licensing their image so that others may copy, redistribute, or modify it without seeking permission. Such licenses are typically called "copyleft" licenses – a play on the word "copyright". Copyleft images are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all of the protection that copyright affords them.

Commonly used licenses include:

Public domain

Works in the public domain are not owned, controlled or otherwise restricted by any person, entity or law in a given jurisdiction. A public domain image may be freely used, altered and published by the public at large without condition.

Generally, an image enters the public domain when it is no longer eligible for copyright protection, usually a certain number of years after its first publication or after its creator's death. The length of time before copyright protection lapses varies greatly from country to country. Because the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in Florida, images used on the Wikipedia must be in the public domain in the United States.[1] Non-US images hosted on Wikipedia are not required to be public domain in their country of origin provided that they are public domain in the United States. Images hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, by contrast, must be public domain in both the United States and their country of origin; compliance with Commons policy, however, does not figure in the FA or GA criteria.

Copyright terms in the US vary according to several conditions. The most common encountered on Wikipedia are:

An image may also be voluntarily released to the public domain by its copyright holder or, in certain cases, may not be eligible for protection in the first place.

Reviewing images

Article reviewers generally need to take into account three aspects:

Policy-mandated elements

Wikipedia's image usage policy requires all images to have three pieces of information:

  1. A copyright tag
  2. A verifiable source
  3. An image summary

1. A copyright tag is a template, typically rectangular and appearing towards the bottom of an image page. The tag indicates the image's license or, if public domain, the reason the image is no longer eligible for copyright protection. The {{GFDL}} copyright tag, for example, appears as follows:

2. A verifiable source can be in the form of a simple weblink, citation for the published work from which the image was scanned or the name and method of contact for the author. The format and location of sourcing information on an image description page may vary. Optimally, images will use the {{Information}} template, which provides organized source and summary information. This template is not mandatory, however, and the information may be "hidden" within template boilerplate (example), if present at all.

3. An image summary provides the "necessary details to support the use of the image copyright tag". WP:IUP recommends the following:

Source

After confirming the presence of the three required elements, reviewers should also examine the source provided. Like prose quotations or statistics, images should have verifiable and reliable sourcing. By their very nature, image copyright tags (especially those claiming public domain) are "material challenged or likely to be challenged" and, consequently, subject to Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V) and the necessity of utilizing reliable sources (WP:RS).

Consider, for example, the following copyright tag:

An image employing this copyright tag would be expected to have a reliable source explicitly indicating the author's date of death or dating the image such that no reasonable scenario would contradict the claim (e.g. the author of a painting dated 1740 could not possibly have been dead less than 100 years).

The following are examples of correctly formatted, verifiable and reliable sourcing:

WP:V notes that "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". A Geocities site, for example, claiming that an image is public domain will probably not be considered sufficiently reliable to support the claim. Institutional and research sites (e.g. libraries, museums and archival sites such as the Library of Congress) are generally the most reliable.

Copyright law is often nuanced and esoteric; consequently, there are many concepts of which image authors and uploaders may not be aware. "Derivative works" and "freedom of panorama", two such concepts, can be counter-intuitive and, as such, are a common cause of unintentional copyright violations.

Derivative works
This image of the Fountain of the Great Lakes is a derivative work. The copyright status of the fountain/statue and the photograph itself need to be considered.

A derivative work is a copy, translation or alteration of an existing work – for example, a scan of a page in a book or a picture of a stuffed animal. The Wikimedia Commons' derivative works guideline contains an example situation which explains the dilemma such images pose to Wikipedia:

By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

Wikipedians or external sources may believe in good faith that a scan, photograph, or screenshot that they have made is an entirely original work, thinking that, because they themselves made the scan or took the photograph, the resulting image is "self-made" and, thus, "free". This is not necessarily the case. Reviewers should consider whether the subject of the image is under copyright – a consideration independent of the copyright status of the image itself.[2]

Although not mandatory, derivative images will, ideally, have summaries identifying the copyright status of both the image and its subject. The image to the right, for example, contains a secondary copyright tag for the fountain/statue. In its case, the image as a whole is "free" and acceptable on Wikipedia, as the subject is demonstrably in the public domain. Alternatively, consider an image of a Batman action figure. Although the image itself could have any copyleft license, the image as a whole would still not be acceptable on Wikipedia, as the figure has not been published with a "free" license.

Freedom of panorama

Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places to be freely published, even if the works are still under copyright. Although such an image is still a derivative work (i.e. a translation of an existing work), it does not infringe the rights of the work's author in countries with freedom of panorama. In other countries, however, the derivative image requires consent of the subject's author to be freely licensed.

The United States does not have freedom of panorama, although pictures of buildings are exempt.[3] Hence "self-made" images of publicly-situated works in the United States require consent of the subject's author, as described above. This revision of an image depicting Jaume Piensa's Crown Fountain in Chicago, for example, is incorrectly tagged. As a photograph taken in a country without freedom of panorama (the USA), it would require the permission of the fountain's creator for it to be published with a CC or GFDL license.

Examples

Self-made

Unless an image is deliberately employing pointilism, the appearance of dots when the image is magnified may be a cause for concern.

"Self made" images are generally those which are uploaded by their authors (i.e. Wikipedian-created images). In addition to checking for the policy-mandated elements, it is helpful to consider several aspects pertaining to provenance:

Reviewing images requires common sense. Consideration of provenance is an art, not a science, and the above notes should not necessarily be used as a "checklist". Whereas any one of these considerations may be meaningless by itself, a combination of issues may bring the validity of an image into question. A talk page note to the uploader asking for clarification or a Google images search, for example, may be appropriate or necessary to be more confident that image is indeed "self-made".

Good image
In full compliance with Wikipedia image policy and properly licensed, the good people of Rhinebeck, New York are able to enjoy a sunny day.

The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of this version) is in full compliance with Wikipedia policy and properly licensed.

  1. Is there a copyright tag? Yes, it asserts that Daniel Case has released the image as GFDL version 1.2.
  2. Is there a verifiable source? Yes, it asserts "self-made"; the uploader matches the author and a link to the author/uploader's profile is included.
  3. Is there an image summary (i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? Yes, the image has a complete {{information}} template.
  4. Does the provenance check out?
    • The image is high resolution (1,929 x 1,284 pixels – on the image description page, look below the image itself or in the "Dimensions" field of the file history).
    • The image contains camera metadata (on the image description page, under the metadata header).
    • The image does not appear posed, to have been taken in a studio or possess other such "professional" traits which would raise red flags.
    • The image is dated September 29, 2007 (i.e. well after the claimed license – GFDL version 1.2 – came into existence).
Flawed image
The Japanese Tea Garden is far more lush than the image's summary.

The "self-made" image pictured to the right (as of this version) is in not in compliance with Wikipedia image policy.

  1. Is there a copyright tag? Yes, it is using the {{GFDL-self}} copyright tag (note that, unlike the GFDL example above, this "self" variant begins with "I, the creator of this work").
  2. Is there a verifiable source? No, there is no explicit assertion of authorship, and, accordingly, no means of contacting the author.
  3. Is there an image summary (i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? No, the image only includes a description of the image's subject.
    • The image summary is essentially non-existent and, consequently, lacks necessary details. The copyright tag implies the uploader is the "I" in the copyright tag, but explicit indication is needed. Compare with the information present in the example above.
  4. Does the provenance check out?
    • The image is a mid-resolution (at 800 x 600 pixels, it is just under 0.5 megapixels). Although this is a higher resolution than most web images, it is lower than expected and is also a common computer screen resolution (i.e. what one might find at a computer wallpaper archive site).
    • The image does not contain camera metadata.

The verifiable source and image summary elements can, in many "self-made" cases, be reasonably treated as one thing. The uploader (i.e. presumed author) would really only need to add a statement to the effect of "Author: J. Ash Bowie" to the summary to resolve the issue.

Already published

Already published images are those which have been obtained from external websites, published works or are otherwise not the authorship of the uploading Wikipedian. Provenance considerations for these images include:

Good image
Hard work and diligence like that exhibited by Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith yields soundly-sourced images.

The image pictured to the right (as of this version) is in full compliance with Wikipedia policy and properly licensed.

  1. Is there a copyright tag? Yes, it uses the {{PD-US}} copyright tag.
  2. Is there a verifiable source? Yes, a full citation of the published source from which the image originated has been provided.
  3. Is there an image summary (i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? Yes, the citation contains the publication date (1920), which supports the copyright tag's assertion of first publication before January 1, 1923.
  4. Does the provenance check out?
    • The image has expected technical qualities. The image is black and white and generally appears to be old.
    • The image has reasonable subject matter. Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith were indeed in Antarctica before 1920 (the reported publication date).
Flawed image
Lacking a verifiable source and image summary, Emperor Valerian is humiliated in the ensuing chaos.

The image on the right (as of this version) is in not in compliance with Wikipedia image policy.

  1. Is there a copyright tag? Yes, it is using the {{PD-art}} copyright tag (claiming the image is in the public domain because the author has been dead more than 70 years).
  2. Is there a verifiable source? No, a source (e.g. web link or published source) has not been provided.
  3. Is there an image summary (i.e. the "necessary details to support ... the image copyright tag")? No, the information provided is not adequately supported. The names of the uploader and asserted author do not match, which indicates the image is not self-made and, thus, there exists an external (non-Wikipedia) source that needs to be cited.
    • Without a source, we cannot confirm that the asserted author (Hans Holbein the Younger) is indeed the original author.

Although this is likely public domain, verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Without a source confirming the author, this image could just as easily be a contemporary work.

Common misconceptions

Notes

  1. ^ WP:IUP: "U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain"
  2. ^ Copyright law contains a provision and exception for "article[s] having an intrinsic utilitarian function". A picture of a car or a chair, for example, would not be problematic. See the Commons guideline for elaboration.
  3. ^ 17 USC 120(a)
  4. ^ United States Copyright Office (2006). Copyright Office Basics. Retrieved August 1, 2008.

See also



Also this week:
  • Growth study
  • Board Nominating Committee
  • Greenspun project
  • WikiWorld
  • News and notes
  • Dispatches
  • Features and admins
  • Technology report
  • Arbitration report

  • (← Previous Dispatches) Signpost archives (Next Dispatches→)

    + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

    Question

    <Question below copied from this inline>

    Everything in the walkthrough section is clear and easy to understand, but I'm left wondering how I was supposed to learn/know all of this and which Wiki Page I would go to if I want to learn more. Can there be a Seealso at the top of each section? How would I have learned this info without this tutorial? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talkcontribs)

    Precious little has been written about reviewing images. Existing pages generally address only what is acceptable (i.e. what one should consider before uploading), not how determine whether what is already here is acceptable. To my knowledge, Wikipedia only has Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations (which is almost exclusively for copyvio prose) and Commons has Commons:How to detect copyright violations. Knowing, for example, that low resolutions and/or lack of metadata should prompt additional scrutiny is largely knowledge gained from experience uploading and reviewing images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK :-) So, this Dispatch will fill in the gaps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question II

    <Question below copied from [1] inline>

    Regarding "The image usage policy (WP:IUP) requires an image to have three pieces of information": All images? On Commons and on Wiki? Is there a difference ? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talkcontribs)

    Yep, all images. WP:IUP is implicitly Wikipedia only (i.e. WP:IUP is not COM:IUP). The relevant Commons policy (COM:L) is stricter, in that it also mandates information (e.g. description, date, etc.) not always required on the Wikipedia side. For the purposes of FA and GA reviewing, inclusion of COM-hosted images in an article certainly subjects the images to WP policy, but it's moot, as WP is more lenient (the FA and GA criteria do not provide consideration of COM policy).
    To go on a tangent, the criteria for both processes are poor in this regard. FAC becomes subject to IUP only because the criteria include "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles" (where "requirements" links to a policy list, to which IUP belongs) and GAN is not directly subject to IUP. The criterion only says "images are tagged with their copyright status"; there's no consideration of whether those tags be correct (perhaps implicitly, but the wording is quite open to gaming) or requirement to provide additional information (author, publication date, etc.), which would be necessary to substantiate a claim. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Free / Non-Free

    I see you've decided to restrict your discussion here to free images. I do hope you'll do a follow-up on non-free images. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the plan. Ideally there would be three (evaluating free, evaluating non-free and one elaborating on public domain), but non-free is a certainty. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    screenshots

    Some screenshots of image license pages might be good. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I like the idea of a screenshot and numbering where to look. Image:Rhinebeck screengrab.jpg is probably going to be confusing, as the presence of two sets of licensing information (the screenshot itself and the licensing therefor) may throw the 101 folks off. Image:Rhinebeck screengrab2.jpg is better, as the markup helps distinguish the two. Obviously, it will need some refining. (MS Paint?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    here's a thing

    What about licenses such as the one on this image or even this one. They seem fine to me, but they are neither CC nor GFDL. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, they're indeed fine (meaning images so tagged are valid and free). CC and GFDL are introduced as "Common copyleft licenses", which is perhaps not explicit enough in the articulation that they are but two of many copyleft possibilites. The dispatch has probably already run afoul of WP:TLDR, but, given the sheer and absurd volume of tags, I only wanted to touch on the most common for reasons of practicality and ease of comprehension. If you, however, think it would be helpful to list those as well, by all means let's do it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Provenience

    What is this?

    • FoP
    • Image quality, anachronisms, usw.

    Unfinished ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfinished indeed. I haven't forgetten . ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Had me worried :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm calling it a night. It's still not done, but it's close enough (I suppose?) in case I can't get back to it before it's "published" (I'll be back in ca. 10 hours - there's never enough time...) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 4th Dispatch didn't post til the 9th, so you may have more time. Have fun! I'll read it tomorrow <yawn, bedtime> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LoC example

    You give the LoC as an example of a reliable site for information about whether or not a work is in public domain. In my experience, however, they don't necessarily give that information. I've been trying to confirm that this image (also found here, by the way) is public domain, for instance, and frankly can't find any verification that it is so, though it would seem almost certainly the case. Specifically, I have no idea of when it was published, either in the USA (if it was) or in France, when the lithographer died (or even necessarily who the lithographer was), or if it is a copy (derivative work) of some prior painting. Incidentally, any clues would be magnificent! --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The LoC, of course, does not always have complete information (thus the "Rights status not evaluated" notice on that image). The context in the Dispatch (at least intended - perhaps it isn't sufficiently articulated or clear) is that LoC is a reliable site (e.g. the information it reports, when available, can be assumed to be reliable). This image, for example, has author, date and a declaration of "No known restrictions on publication" (the LoC's "cover our rears" way of saying it's PD); those can be considered reliable assertions. The point I'm trying to get across, simply, is that LoC is a reliable source for image information (certainly not that all images thereon are PD). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CC

    Re. this edit (and the "common misperceptions" section), would it be possible to list all the acceptable (and perhaps even unacceptable) licenses? For instance, would I be right in saying that the following (and only the following?) are acceptable:

    • CC-by
    • CC-by-SA

    And the following are unacceptable:

    • CC-by-NC
    • CC-by-ND
    • CC-by-NC-ND
    • CC-by-NC-SA

    Is this a full list? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know Ec is concerned about length, but I agree with Jbmurray; I think this is an important Dispatch, will be much read and referred to, and I prefer comprehensive over length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Elcobbola, you've put an enormous amount of work into this Dispatch, and it's much appreciated. Ready for part 2 yet ?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been kind of fun. Although... I have three typewriter-related articles that would be so easy to bring from scratch to FA, but I keep getting side tracked. ;) Is there a projected date for the fair use version? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, CC licenses can also add country "modules" (e.g. DE, IN, etc.) to indicate country of publication/origin (e.g. CC-by-DE as a German-specific variant), but I don't think that's really necessary to articlate here. So yes, that would be a complete list.

    Comprehensive this dispatch is not (partly why I wanted to split to three); it is very much "101" and stays quite general, so it seems odd to me to include such detail. The dispatch mentions, in several places, that free images need to be licensed to allow derivatives and commercial use. Given that the meanings of NC and ND are articulated, it seems unnecessary to elaborate further. I'm also trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel; pages like Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Comprehensive, although quite out-dated, are already there to lay out the gambit of copyright tags. Part of me feels too much elaboration can even be condescending (i.e. is it disrespectful of our readers' intelligence to assume they can't put two and two together?) Ultimately, however, this dispatch needs to help people and if expanding the CC licenses is really necessary to do that, then let's. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's pitched about right. I do think that the above information is useful, as it does seem to be a frequent cause of confusion. I know you don't want to produce a checklist, but if people know that they should look for the acronyms "CC-by" and "CC-by-SA" (and that the others won't do), then that's a help. NB we can always save space by continuing to copy-edit your, ahem, sometimes circumlocutious prose ;). --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I plead incompetence; images don't seem to mesh into my brain (and particularly not when I'm trying to sort what to do about GimmeBot, a big zap on my time). I'd say, ask Awadewit about the pitch. If Jbmurray and Awadewit are happy, good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Verily my verbiage veers verbose. You're actually stripping out more than you may realize; I suspect our real life writings are meant for quite different audiences and that, in turn, is manifested here as, perhaps, disagreement over what is necessary and/or appropriate. In any case, I'll drop Awadewit a note. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Awadewit

    • Works so licensed are still under copyright; their creators have merely waived some, but not all, of the protection that copyright affords them. - This might bear repeating. It is quite important and often misunderstood.
    • A public domain image may be used freely and without condition by the public at large. - Is it worth noting that public domain images can be altered?
    • I find the "author" field the strangest in the information template. When you upload to Commons, for example, it asked you who created the file, however that is not always the most relevant information for that field. I don't know if this confused other people, but it sure confused me when I first started uploading.
      • Hmm, that seems more pertinent to the uploading side of images - not so much the reviewing side. The Commons' upload forms seem to change every day, so I'm no longer surprised when poor word choices appear. I tend to ignore what it asks for and rely on the preview button to make sure the end result is right - that or just upload the damn thing and enter information "manually" once it's there.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the section on "Derivative works" might need a bit of expansion to explain what would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable. An example or two might highlight the issue more clearly.
    • I think the "Freedom of panorama" section might confuse some readers. I think the accumulation of jargon might be the problem.
      • I tried to clarify but, to my eyes, the only real jargon is "derivative work", which is defined before the FoP section. Is there wording in particular that you think will trip up readers?
    • "Self-made": What about adding scanned images claiming to be self-made which can be caught through halftones?
    • What about including something about republication rights and how they sound like "free" works but are not?

    I hope these suggestions help. Awadewit (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Great dispatch

    Very informative. I consider myself well-versed in matters of copyright, but I learned a new point or two from this dispatch. I agree that this Dispatch would become a great reference in the future. :-) --seav (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ec, this is a beautiful article. Can we submit it to FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, I'm sure that would go over really well. I think the "advice" section of WP:WIAFA may be as close at it could get, if that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just like to second or third the praise...this is great article on an often frustrating topic. Great job!Erudy (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    taking/publishing

    Hi. I previously changed the stress in the "freedom of panorama" section from taking photos to publishing. It's been shifted back:

    Freedom of panorama is a copyright law provision that allows for photographs to be freely taken of works (e.g. buildings and sculptures) permanently installed in public places, even if the works are still under copyright. (my emphasis)

    But surely, except in military states, it is always permissible to photograph outdoor sculptures and buildings etc. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "freely taken" verbiage is from the Commons guideline (obviously, it's not correct there either). I've changed the wording, but I don't think it's optimal. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FU images

    Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia after Tony removed and I added back "fair use" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, the people at NFC are quite insistent that there's no such thing as a fair-use image; only non-free. A fair-use justification is sometimes upheld. Tony (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily disagree. The Wikipedia vernacular, however, tends to use the terms interchangeably. Therefore, as a main goal of this Dispatch was accessibility to the image layman, I do think the inclusion of "fair use" is appropriate. Would something like "or, erroneously, 'fair use'" be workable? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking you might work in Tony's justification word; doing something would be helpful, since idiots like me aren't aware of the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

















    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches