Wikipedia:Fair use review/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 27

[edit] Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg

Is this fair use? It's from a news source.

It is orphaned now, so I have tagged it as such and it will most likely be deleted shortly.-Andrew c [talk] 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 16, 2008

[edit] Image:Taegukgi movie.jpg, Image:Brotherhood UK DVD cover.jpg

The (original) Korean poster is already in the article, is it absolutely necessary that we have the other releases' cover art? Even Harry Potter articles don't have US and UK covers (I'm sure there was a big stink over it), and excess covers provide no more information. ALTON .ıl 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 18, 2008

[edit] Image:Phantom.jpg

Message has been left at WT:Non-free content to enlist comments from third-party editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcobbola (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera poster image is being used for The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) and Her Majesty's Theatre. Only use in Her Majesty's Theatre is contested. Per poster licensing tag, fair use is allowed

To provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration.

Her Majesty's Theatre is an article on the structure itself, not the opera or poster. Further, existing prose pertinent to the opera does not constitute "critical commentary". Additionally, per WP:NFCC#8:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Our knowledge of the topic, Her Majesty's Theatre, is not significantly increased by the presence of the poster. Our understanding that the opera has had a substancial run time at the theatre would not be harmed by the image's exclusion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The last section of the article, Her Majesty's Theatre is largely devoted to a discussion of the historic long-run of the musical The Phantom of the Opera at the theatre since 1986. This is the second longest run of any musical at a theatre in history. The use of the iconic logo of the musical next to this discussion adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the article. Her Majesty's Theatre has been devoted to showing this one work of theatre for more than two decades, and it is still playing at the theatre. It would be strange to see an article about the theatre without an image related to the musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note Ssilvers has 109 edits (3 minor) to Her Majesty's Theatre article (second highest of all editors). Neutral, third-party input would be appreciated. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The image is just decorating the page. It doesn't further illustrate the longevity of it's run or show any points described in the prose of the article. While it may be valid to say that there is a close association with that theatre and that musical, that is not to say that the use of the image is covered by our WP:FU policy here on wikipedia. -Andrew c [talk] 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with ЭLСОВВОLД, the image is unnecessary to increas[ing] readers' understanding of the topic, nor would its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#8) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this image is unacceptable fair use for the article Her Majesty's Theatre. Even if Phantom's run at the theatre is discussed, the image does not depict "the Phantom's run at the theatre". If you could find an image of a Phantom poster that is customized for this particular theatre (with dates, stars, etc.) I think you could make a case for fair use. --Laser brain (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[Conflicted] Hi (242 edits/46 minor, so, yes involved - but one still has an opinion). The piece was written with this French Renaissance style theatre in mind, with its interior modelled on that of a French opera house. The opera and the building are interlinked in terms of both the setting and the plot of the opera. The image is essentially the logo of this theatre's production, which has been exported around the world and also been filmed.
I have removed the image while this discussion takes place. I am interested as, in general, I thought it was acceptable to use poster images that advertised events in an article on that location. The image is both low resolution and does not harm the interests of the copyright holder, which I thought would be the prime consideration. Should I go down to the theatre and take a high resolution photo of the same poster, in situ and describe it as a detail of the exterior of the theatre; would that be an acceptable image? (I think the conflicted poster has answered that question, although in this production stars are considered fungible. Performances have been at 7:30 for 22 years, with matinees on Sat and Thu. This is not a touring production. Kbthompson (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now found an image Image:PhantomoftheOpera-BoatScene.PNG, that seems to have a less controversial Non-free use justification. I'd still appreciate any further opinions on the original image, as it does affect illustration of many articles. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I might argue that is even more troublesome. The article is about the theatre, not the stars of Phantom. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe it would help to step back and analyze the relationship between the two; Phantom was written for the theatre; the theatre was not built for Phantom. Your comments would, therefore, be perfectly valid for inclusion of an image of the theatre on the opera page, but the converse just doesn’t work. It’s the same reason we can’t put a Dole logo on the Pineapple article. Fair use simply doesn’t recognize the relevance of a strong symbiotic relationship. Low resolution and interests of the copyright holder are two of many checks, all of which are of equal necessity and importance. Snapping a photo of the poster on the theatre would be considered a derivative work and subject to the same requirements. How about an image of people queued to see the show? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I always have this problem with wiki-copyright issues. Items that would represent 'fair comment' in both an academic and a journalistic context seem not to apply here. UK copyright law would not regard an image taken of something on public display as either derivative, nor copyright. All rights to the derivative image are lost by placing it in a public place. Similarly, you cannot copyright a person's likeness. Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to go down there and take photos, could you get a better one than Image:HerMajestysTheatre.png? Ideally, one in better light, without a person in the picture, and including the whole building but without the perspective problems. You could also do a close-up of the front entrance (the bottom quarter of that picture) - the posters on display there would be part of the shot. Maybe too much a part of the shot, but might still be OK. As for illustrating the long-running nature of the production, a tasteful photo of a collection of programmes from the first run through to the present day would be nice (spread out as a fan for example). As you are not focusing on any one particular programme, you might be able to avoid copyright issues, or at least justify it with a rationale. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though really, as an article about the building, the ideal way to illustrate the long production run would be a photo of the building at various times throughout the 22 years. Maybe old newspaper archives might have pictures from opening nights from past years? You have an artwork from 1867 and one from 2005. Are there no other pictures available from 1897 onwards? See here for examples. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As User:Woody noted on User:SandyGeorgia's talk page, the image "adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors [named in the accompanying text] in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like" in situ, so to speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've brought my concerns regarding the new image to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get a fresh start, as we've now strayed from Phantom.jpg, the topic here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 21, 2008

[edit] Image:KaraTur_Box_Set_Cover.jpg

Hi, I uploaded this image some long time ago, and have since retired from active editing. Recently there's been a boilerplate message left claiming there was no rationale. This is untrue, but in the event there's some real concern not being articulate, I'd like somebody else to put their eyes on it and if possible fix things for me so I can stay retired. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale concerns seem justified. See WP:RAT for the elements that must be included. I'm not familiar with the topic, so I’m not qualified to write a FUR, as it needs to articulate the importance/significance of the image’s contribution to the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what are those concerns and elements? I don't see anything missing. And it's the cover of the book (or rather, the box containing the books, though that cover is also the cover of one of the books), and I think it's pretty standard to use the cover of a book, in the article for the purpose of identification. What is the problem here? I looked at several feature articles for books, and most of them had comparable rationales. Some used a template, but others did not. But it was being claimed there was no rationale, which doesn't help. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The concerns are whatever brought you to this page. Elements are outlined on WP:RAT; replaceability, for example, is one that is missing. The fastest, easiest way to solve this is to fill out and apply the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. FA articles have, historically, not been always been thoroughly checked for FU compliance and changes could have been made after promotion. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What brought me to this page was an inaccurate boilerplate message claiming there was no rationale. There was a rationale when that plate was added. Been there for quite some time. So....obviously that can't be a correct concern on its face, can it? I removed it, but it was re-added with no communication to address specific concerns. So in the interest of seeking further input, I asked the person adding it to explain, and brought it up here. Now as to replacability, I don't know that that's a concern, since nothing has been said to me about it. It's a scan of a box cover. Do I have to spell out that for purposes of identifying the product it's not replaceable with another image? I've added a line saying there is no other image to serve the same purpose. Is this acceptable? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)