Image talk:White Nerdy YOU SUCK cropped.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikimedia logo 2 Cropped version 3 Can you really? 4 {{video-screenshot}} 5 wikipedia logo 6 Ridiculous

[edit] Wikimedia logo

Did Weird Al really not get permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to use their logo? The picture's license info says that his use of it is unlicensed.SteveSims 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a parody of Wikipedia, Al can legally use this without permission under Fair Use, just as many images on Wikipeda are used without permission under Fair Use. Fair Use explicitly allows use for parody, which is what Al does. --Phantom784 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cropped version

The cropped version here is just pathetic, "OH NOES, IT HAS SOME UNFREE ELEMENT IN IT". 203.109.245.204 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cropping out all non-free parts is the only way to get an image onto Commons and make it useful for Wikipedia in more than one language. In addition, limiting the use of the non-free parts of a video to only the article that is directly about that video makes a better fair use argument even on those Wikipedias that do use unlicensed images. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BUT OMFG IT HAS SOME UNFREE ELEMRNT! YOU CAN SEE PART OF HIS GLASSES AND THE MAC MOUSE! OH NOES WE NEED SUM LEET PHOTOSHOPPERS. OOPS I JUST SAID PHOTOSHOPPERS! I MEANT TO SAY: WE NEED SOME PEOPLE EXPERIENCED WITH ADOBE PHOTOSHOP! Superior1 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See our article Photoshopping. Feel free to call them Photoshoppers. --WikiSlasher 12:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Those elements almost certainly fall under de minimis uncopyrightability. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you really?

I may not be a wiki expert, but is it really possible to type like thet in the edit screen??--Whytecypress 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. --74.109.173.23 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can if you know your ways in javascript. / 81.226.131.216 23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{video-screenshot}}

I've removed this licensing, which Ybs3 (talk · contribs) added, citing "this is music video screenshots besed image". It is, but that licensing infers that parts of this image could be copyrighted to the company which produced the video, whereas the portion only depicted here, cannot be. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia logo

Does anybody have any thoughts on whether or not the Wikipedia logo itself is lending overt identification to this image or not? The description (both in the article and the IDP) say that it is a Wikipedia webpage/interface. I ask because if it is removed it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons for all projects to use. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

You can't have a GFDL template, and then state it isn't a GFDL image. One or the other. Personally, I find this ridiculous, so I'm removing the non-GFDL tag. -- Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)