Template talk:Non-free book cover

src: www.gevme.com

Video Template talk:Non-free book cover

New Image

{{editprotected}}

Description: Remove both Images: Red copyright.svg and Image: Fair use icon - Book.png and replace with Image: Icons Copyright books.svg. I'm sure this is a non-controversial change because old images are marked to convert to SVG, and the new vector version I created is easy to modify. If anyone does not like the new look, it can be discussed and the image can be easily modified after the discussion. I'm also the creator of stamps, movie posters, television, and copyright pictures of newspapers, so there will be a greater sense of unity by using this image.

Thank you in advance! Tkgd2007 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done , but will come back if opposed. Happy - melon 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC )

Maps Template talk:Non-free book cover

Comments

The problem I have with User: UninvitedCompany's revised template is:

1. Does not specify the need for a low res/image . This is important because the uploader/tagger needs to see that this is a requirement. The reason for low res is that the images can not contribute to the "real world" piracy of this material.
2. I think "to illustrate the book in question" is more easily interpreted and understood than "for identification and critical commentary on the book and its content," and actually puts things under its own definition, but that's just me.
3. The server location should be recorded and the host (Wikimedia Foundation) must be linked strictly (so if this text is moved elsewhere, the link will remain valid and will be clear in what context it was originally written).
4. I think more blankets "Other uses" are better than saying "use other than identification", etc., a bit more accurately and more accurately. Even using it for identification may not be included in the "fair use" policy if you do so as part of a nonprofit service, for example.

Just my thoughts, happy to listen to others though. In my mind, the purpose of this tag is for A. helping users understand how these images should be used, ideally (ie they should be low-res and used in articles to describe the book itself, not just something on the cover), and B they should describe the basic components of our "fair use" rationale (I think connecting to a more complete and individualized version would be ideal at some point in the future) so that the prospective copyright holder can understand that we understand what we claim. --Fastfission 00:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's good in some ways and maybe not so good to others. Here are my thoughts point by point:

• I think it's important to include "low resolution".
• It's a little longer, but I think it might make sense to say "to identify and illustrate critical comments on the book in question". Comment?
• Not sure if I think it's important to include links to WMF or not. Have to think about that one.
• I do not really pick exactly what the copyright infringement phrase says, but I think it's important to mention that the use of images "elsewhere" may also be copyright infringement.
• I think it makes more sense to link to Wikipedia: Fair use than Wikipedia: Copyright.

JYolkowski//talk 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think that links to WMF are necessary primarily because they are really a questionable organization that makes fair use claims, and gives us clear notices to say that the original context is not profit, which I think will ward off most people who oppose such use (because we do not make anything of it). My real opposition to the "critical comment" section is that although it sounds good and specific, it does not really mean more in practice than "illustrating the book in question". Because we determined the use of it , I think we should be as sharp as possible, because we expect people with less potential than high school education levels, and perhaps low-level English proficiency, to understand that. Connecting to WP: FU may be more direct than WP: CP, although at the moment I think WP: FU is very confusing and badly written entirely, so I have avoided connecting it for a while. ;-) --Fastfission 15:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is an not organization that makes fair use claims. Editors who upload images and/or add them to articles are the ones who make fair use claims. The Foundation only provides servers, and generally avoids interfering in editorial decisions about whether and how to use certain content. At the time the copyright owner complains (and not before), the Foundation may decide to remove the content or improve a fair use defense. --Michael Snow 22:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, good in that case hard links may not be necessary. --Fastfission 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any law, case law, or legal theory that states that lower image resolution in any way supports fair claims of use. The rationale behind contributing to piracy is AFAIK, which sounds sensible but has no legal basis.

Fair use laws specifically include criticism but do not specifically include illustrations. Therefore, our claims are stronger if we restrict our use to criticism.

The goal of Wikipedia fair use policy is to allow content to be reused by spider publishers. View discussion mailing list for more information on this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• At low resolution:

Fair Use. The practice of search engines to make a small reproduction ("thumbnail") of the image and place it on its own website (known as "inlining") does not damage the potential market for the sale or licensing of the images. Important Factors. The thumbnails are much smaller and have much worse quality than the original photo and are served to index the image and help the public access it. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).) [1]

Beyond this, the fact that the res is much lower than the original helps our "not replace original" claims, as well as more speculative claims that our use does not encourage piracy in the future. I also do not see how it can do anything but help our "fair use" claims.

• In criticism vs. illustration: in the encyclopedia, I do not really see what the difference is in this context. I think putting a criticism on a separate thought page would be great, but for the purpose of the tag (which in this case instructs the user how to use it), it will just be confusing.
• I have been an active participant in the mailing list, I do not think it's at all the purpose of the fair use policy of Wikipedia. Whatever it is, I'm not sure what you get with this. The "Fair use" image on Wikipedia tends to be not to "fair use" when used by spider publishers. One of the main reasons for labeling images as "fair use" and doing it right is to make sure the re-publishers do not intentionally infringe on copyright.

- Fastfission 16:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

src: blog.intercomassets.com

Copyright ownership

The tempalte currently says "... most likely owned by the book publisher." Most US commercial publishers only purchase licenses to use cover art, and copyright remains with the cover artist. Artists often publish "collected works" covering multiple covers, which can not be done if the copyright of the cover is held by the publisher. I suggest revising this to be "... most likely owned by a book publisher, or by a cover artist." DES ^(talk) 23:46, January 10, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I changed it. JYolkowski//talk 03:25, January 11, 2006 (UTC)

src: www.creativindie.com

Question

Can the book's cover be trimmed and still in reasonable use under this template? savidan ^{(talk) (e @)} 06:04, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

• It depends how much is cut and the purpose of the pruning. If cut to point no longer can say it is a book (ie, it has become just a photo/illustration on its cover), then it is not. --Fastfission 12:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

src: www.creativindie.com

Article discusses the author

The "fair use" agreement allows the use of "to illustrate an article that discusses the book". Can it also be used for articles that discuss the author? If so, can the template be changed to read "to illustrate articles that discuss books or authors". - Tivedshambo (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I think in general the answer is no, the cover of the book fair use does not apply to their author page Borisblue 03:58, August 24, 2006 (UTC)

I am also not a lawyer, but I would not agree if the book is the subject biography/autobiography of an article. The article will reference the book, so it will definitely qualify as fair use because discussing authors and discussing biography/autobiography is essentially the same thing. In addition, essentially, the article becomes "free advertising" for publishers, increasing sales rather than hurting them. Nightngle 14:47, October 26, 2006 (UTC)

Back Jacket Cover

• Often, the back cover of the book cover jacket will have a photo of the author, along with a biographical description of the author. Are not low resolutions of this type of image under the same fair use reason with low-resolution books covering themselves? Thank you for your time, Smeelgova 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

src: www.gevme.com

Acknowledgment of edition/publisher & amp; cover artist

I believe to qualify for fair use, we must acknowledge translators/publishers for certain editions taken from the cover. This is especially true for old works that can be published by a number of different translations, in a number of different publishers. To use a copyright cover copy of the publisher as a representative of the work without explicitly identifying which publishers may be viewed as the release of the publisher's work (ie using their cover image to benefit from their competitor's edition) - and thus fall outside the interpretation strict requirements of the law of fair/fair use, and common courtesy apart. We must understand fair use as the exclusion of the minimis against the law, and thus even in fair use any rights of the author (including moral rights such as acknowledgment) that are not contrary to fair use are still binding we. Likewise, with the same logic, in the case of a cover image, we must also recognize every recognized cover artist in the frontmatter of the edition. I believe that templates should be changed to make the previously mentioned requirements. --144.136.115.144 09:51, October 8, 2006 (UTC)

• The law of fair use only cares if you hurt the publishing market of individual works. It does not matter if you hurt the competitor's market for individual employment jobs. What matters is whether you crawled copyright holders in their own markets; if you are actually helping them in their market (by beating their competitors) it does not fit into a fair use qualification at all. --Fastfission 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

src: d30zbujsp7ao6j.cloudfront.net

Public domain book cover

This tag specifies that it provides a fair usage statement for copyrighted book covers, but in reality, there are a number of images marked with it that are actually in the public domain. For that reason, I added a sentence that explains this. Feel free to rewrite, etc., but I think there must be something to effect it in the template. thanks. Cewek Bowen 06:43, December 24, 2006 (UTC)

I think 'use one public domain tag' should 'use the appropriate public domain tag', to avoid misunderstanding. --xyzzy _n 21:42, January 10, 2007 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 11:57, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Images

I think (C) in the image should be converted into a red C as we use for other fair use templates for the purpose of uniformity. The gray is too similar to the one we use for PD (except that does not exit the stroken). I will make this change to the public image if no objections are raised. Jonathan ^talk 18:07, April 19, 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging fair use rationality

I have filed a change of pronoun to our non-free image template, and I try to keep the discussion centered here. Please join the discussion. (ESKOG) ^(Speak) 11:29, May 4, 2007 (UTC)

Request: enables assignment in addition to umbrella category

{{editprotected}}
Categories: Book covers are very soft. Of course it will be useful to split into subcategories, and the first attempt has been made, but the template categorizes everything into it automatically, so the images should be added to additional categories manually and the congestion is not helped. Can you change the code so that it allows optional parameters for the category to be used instead of the default umbrella? --Malyctenar 10:08, June 3, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this function will be useful and help divide a very large category. The {{non-free comic}} template has included this functionality. I will try to copy it here, but I am still amateur when I have to parse the syntax. Maybe someone else can see and see what I'm talking about. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:51, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following is the code from the above mentioned template which allows for further categorization.

{{#if: {{{1 |}}} | [[Kategori: {{{1 |}}} | {{# if: {{{2 |}}} | {{{2 |}}} | {{PAGENAME}}}}]] | {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | {{ns: 6}} | [[Kategori: Gambar komik tidak bebas | {{PAGENAME}}]]}}}} & lt;/includeonly & gt; & lt; noinclude & gt;

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:02, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would conflict with the current meaning of parameter 1, which is used to specify an alternate name for the page, not the category. I changed the code so you can say category = foo to put the article in category foo. --Ã, Carl (CBMÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 22:52, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:34, December 15, 2007 (UTC)

Arabic interwiki

{{editprotected}}

Please add [[ar: ????: ???? ????]] --TheEgyptian 11:32, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

Y Done . --ais523 11:39, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

Langauge wikipedia more

Does the use of these images in other language versions of wikipedia constitute copyright infringement? Thank you.-- Eukesh 16:46, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki (ukrainian)

Please add: uk: ?????????? ????? - By Kernytskyi 21:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thought of fair use?

This template is somewhat confusing for people new to the Wikipedia image policy. On the one hand it states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images from the book's cover to illustrate an article that discusses the book" is "fair use" in the US, but on the other hand it instructs the uploader to include "fair fair use reasons." One may reasonably believe that no "fair fair use reason" is necessary if the image is to be used to illustrate an article in a book, but certain users (such as Betacommand assume the position that the template is insufficient and that the name of the article should be called and that the uploader must specifically stated that it was used in the article.This is probably because the auto-tagging system can not know whether the cover image of the book is used to describe an article about the book.

I'm proposing that the template be changed so that the uploader can put the book name in the template itself, creating a link to the article discussing the book. This should make things easier in the long run. Either that, or explain in detail what the uploader is expecting. Crypticfirefly 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask a similar question, but you have formulated it more clearly, so I will try to add my ideas to your idea, without reiterating the points you have discussed. When someone adds this template to an image, it states that the reason for fair use is not enough. Looking at the Wikipedia policy page of what the reason for fair use should be, one can write that has rational fair use, but because it looks very similar to the reason for fair use of the template, which the template itself states is not enough, one ends with a feeling that any reason for fair use which people can think of is not enough. I'm not sure if this makes my feelings clear, but I do not know how to define them in a better way. Goodbye, Shinobu 21:20, September 26, 2007 (UTC)

Suggest fix {Editprotected}

{{editprotected}}

• recall images in 1632 series, I noticed some variations after pipetrick (parameter limiter, actually) in this template. For intelligence, some have | Title = name and others only | name. Oops! Checking the template code I noticed does not use {{{1}}}, then I recommend making the parameters have a boolean or capacity:

the source line

 [[Categories: Book Cover | & lt; noinclude & gt; & lt;/noinclude & gt; {{{Title | {{PAGENAME}}}}}]]  

change to

 [[Categories: Book Cover | & lt; noinclude & gt; & lt;/noinclude & gt; {{{1 | {{{title | {{{Title | {PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}]]  

(change also includes lowercase in title = also, possible possibility given prevalence of all lowercase arguments in templates - people just are not accustomed to capital letters.)

Tepuk tangan!// Fra nkB 22:40, 12 Oktober 2007 (UTC)

Y Selesai --ais523 14:55, 13 Oktober 2007 (UTC)

Template Baru

{{editprotected}}

I recommend a new app from the {{Non-free book cover}} template:

--Strike007 17:57, 23 Desember 2007 (CET)

Bagaimana dengan gambar non-cover, mis. halaman dari buku?

What about the fair use of a book image that is not specifically close (eg Image: Ecological sample page. JPG? Sometimes using pages from this book is also necessary to write a thorough encyclopedic article on the subject It seems there is no available here, Richard001 (talk) 06:36, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

Questions about autobiographical covers in articles about subject

Should the cover image of a book be used in an article about the person in which an autobiography is mentioned, but not discussed in detail? I think specifically about the following usability:

• Picture: Wayne Rooney's Book My Story So Far.jpg in Wayne Rooney
• Image: Gerrard myautobiography.jpeg at Steven Gerrard

It seems that in both cases, autobiography is less related to the subject, and no article mentions more about autobios. --Mosmof (talk) 02:24, August 16, 2008 (UTC)

Support plural, please

{{editprotected}}

I recommend that the text be tweaked to show that more than one cover can be drawn, as in Figure: Narnia_books.jpg. ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done . Cirt (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to add interwiki

ml: ????: Cover of non-free book can be added as interwiki for this.. --Vssun (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Y has been added itself. --Vssun (talk) 17:30, August 30, 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Maybe we should add: "This file can not be uploaded in Commons" - Pierpao (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkish InterWiki

• Turkish InterWiki link: [[tr :? ablon: kapan kapa ?? fair kullan? m]] Emperyan - message/ ileti 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on December 17, 2012

As far as I know, changes to templates made by SchuminWeb on November 19 were never discussed, and thus no consensus was set for it. This makes it an old edit B . I want to take the next step in WP: BRD and R deflect it, but I can not, because I'm not an admin. Therefore I request that the admin restore SchuminWeb's edit on November 19th. thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Done . View discussion in User talk: SchuminWeb # Change of words from "Not Free" template. - Mr. Stradivarius ^(chat) 10:38, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia