Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Wikipedia will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern on deletion of all Time magazine covers from Wikipedia

Ta bu shi da yu has began to delete every single Time cover on every page. I reported him to Vandalism in Progress and Chick Beown deleted my Vandalism in Progress Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stating:

"This is a legitimate content dispute and not vandalism. Incidentally, Ta bu shi da yu is pretty clearly right; fair use images should only be used when a reasonable case for fair use has been made."

(Dmcdevit deleted the Vandalism in Progress complaint)

I am a law student, and have done some research on fair use. Ta bu shi da yu and Chick Beown are is using a slippery slope argument (the remote potential of lawsuits) with no legal justification to support their his deletions.

In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the US appelete court ruled that low resolution photos are permissable on a website under fair use.

Using this case, on Talk:Time_(magazine) the wikiusers stopped an arugment by agreeing to shrink the resolution size of the photos.

This can easily done by Ta bu shi da yu with the photos which Ta bu shi da yu complains about.

But instead, Ta bu shi da yu began to delete every single photo of Time on wikipedia. When I asked him to stop he belegerently responded: "Go ahead punk...My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise."

Chick Beown is incorrect and does not seem to realize the breath of Ta bu shi da yu deletions: "Ta bu shi da yu is not removing all Time covers; he is removing the ones that do not specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover."

This is clearly not true.

For example, Ta bu shi da yu deleted:

• The Time magazine picture on: Thomas J. Walsh The photo which Ta bu shi da yu deleted is a photo of Thomas J. Walsh,

• The Time magazine picture on: Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama The photo which Ta bu shi da yu deleted is a photo of Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama.

These are only the first two photos which I checked, everyone of the photos which Ta bu shi da yu may very well "specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover." Travb 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've misrepresented what I did and said in several ways. I did not remove your comment from Vandalism in Progress, I removed it from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where it did not belong because it was not about vandalism (see "What vandalism is not" at the linked page). I did not use a slippery slope argument and I did not mention lawsuits; I only referred to Wikipedia policy. Look, if you want to file an RFC file an RFC, but don't report something as vandalism that isn't. Chick Bowen 01:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My apolgies, I corrected and refined my statments above. Mr./Ms. User:Chick Bowen I appreciate you correcting my mistake on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and have fortuntly never had to deal with this situation before.

I eagerly await an answer to my question, possed on your user page:

"Mr./Ms. User:Chick Bowen please direct me to where on wikipedia the deletion of all Time Magazine covers has become wikipedia policy." I look forward to your response. Thank you, Travb 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not. But an assertion of fair use has to be made for any fair use image. If you want to save these images, just make sure the article discusses the relevant issue of Time Magazine and put an assertion of fair use on the image description page. Look, I understand you're upset, but Ta bu shi da yu isn't deleting anything; he's just editing. This really shouldn't be that big a deal. Oh, and please stop calling me Mr./Ms. User: if you would. My username is my name here. Chick Bowen 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I need to learn to control my emotions. I appreciate your patience. Thanks for your time.Travb 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Note I changed this entry name to RFC to "content" Because I just learned this:

"For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours."

There needs to be one more person firstTravb 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to file an RFC you also need to file it at WP:RFC. Chick Bowen 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have learned if you never get pie in your face, you never learn. Lord knows I have eaten an entire bakery in my life. Thanks for your help Chick Bowen.Travb 01:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine's Explicit Policy on Use of Their Covers

http://www.time.com/time/reprints/covers/

Time's' policy is clear for use of their covers on Web pages: ask.

I question the use of the Ann Coulter Time cover on the article about her and its use again on one of her books.

The file history does not indicate that permission was sought and granted. I have stated my reservation on the Coulter talk page. It is up to others to decide whether it is okay not to ask Time despite their stated policy. I suspect Time might grant permission but we won't know until they are asked.skywriter 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

skywriter there was a huge debate about this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_2

In this discussion, I mention how I actually got permission from Time, but that wasn't enough for the Paternal copyright police.Travb 04:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)