Talk:Margaret Trudeau/copyvio

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio

• The picture of Margaret Trudeau, Image:Margaret Trudeau.jpg - Nightcrawler uploaded it and states that "photo scanned from Book cover. Used in Wikipedia under "Fair Use" provisions of a public personality.". Is that a valid "fair use" provision? I wouldn't think so. What do you guys think? Xamian 04:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • It's not part of the fair use guideline. Not at all. It's not hard to get permission and we need to pay attention to the law. It needs to be removed. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • IANAL. It's relevant to fair use#Purpose_and_character and fair use#Nature_of_the_work: public figures are suitable targets for reportage, and a portrait photo of a public figure is afforded less protecton. Martin 22:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Reportage is somewhat different than copying. See below for the rest of my concern. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair Use is not limited to the Internet. Currently Tuff-Cat and others scan music albums and have posted them here at Wikipedia. Similarly, there are many other book covers here. NightCrawler 21:52, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • I think it's definitely in a gray area for fair use. What other people do is no justification. It would be better to get permission. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • IANAL The picture looks like a copyright infringement candidate for derived commercial works. The scene is composed (background, makeup and clothing selection, font choice and positioning for the text). That's creative, published, somewhat against fair use. More than required is used (head shot is all we need), argues for infringement. That's two of four factors somewhat against fair use, so a commercial reuser of Wikipedia material may have a problem even if we don't in print Wikipedia. Replacing it with a candid shot would be better - see thescene a faire (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/scenes.html) principle. JamesDay 16:50, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • JamesDay has convinced me that the current version is not fair use. Perhaps it could be kept if Nightcrawler (or someone else) cropped it and faded out the background? Then we're reducing the creativity of the result, and it's a more transformative use of the work - both plus points for fair use. Martin 17:43, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Well cropped seems OK enough, though the makeup work and possible retouching still is less safe than an ad hoc shot. This is one where our lack of finer tagging for images hurts us. It's being worked on (slowly:)) and hopefully will let us use more richly online while letting us and others filter for other uses.JamesDay 17:08, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Should explain a bit more: I think this is fair transformative use for the online Wikipedia but we need to describe why. We also help our fair use case if we link to the book in the image caption (because that will take traffic to the book, making the effect of the use on revenue positive). I'm not really keen on it anyway, but it qualifies. I wouldn't like to see it used in print Wikipedia, though. So, we want better, but this one will do for now. I'll add a suitable caption to the use after I'm done here. Comments on the caption at Margaret Trudeau and fair use analysis at the image page are welcome. JamesDay 03:04, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Now that DW/NightCrawler has gone I see even less reason to keep this photo. With the text included it looks awful anyway, and I don't think it is worth keeping in the article if it can barely even meet "fair transformative use". It is now an orphan and I suggest it be deleted. Angela 23:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • It is worth mentioning for those who don't know that DW had a long history of downloading copyright images. Frankly if it is established that some 'new' user is DW I would recommend instant deletion of all images downloaded by them unless it can be unambiguously established that the image is not copyright. FearÉIREANN 21:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

It was uploaded by DW, so I deleted the image to finish this one off. The image isn't even being used now, so it's a bit of a moot point. Daniel Quinlan 02:30, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)