Misplaced Pages

:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z4ns4tsu (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 9 August 2006 (→Discussion: suggestion of compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:38, 9 August 2006 by Z4ns4tsu (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: suggestion of compromise)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Mediation Case: Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific

Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information

Request made by: MECU≈talk 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
I am trying to coordinate everyone here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format but that page contains a list of other pages that discussion is occuring on.
Who's involved?
User:Nmajdan, User:Johntex, User:Ed_g2s, User:Bobak, User:Zscout370, User:Jkelly, User:Zzyzx11, User:Carnildo, User:ReyBrujo, User:Simetrical, User:Johnleemk, User:Mecu, User:Z4ns4tsu, User:MatthewFenton
What's going on?
Some members (begun by User:Ed_g2s) are removing use of images from sports pages because they believe the images violate fair use policy. Other believe they are being over zealous in their intrepretation of fair use. Specifically (for example), on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team, some claim that logos of teams in the Game Notes section violate fair use of these images. You can see the example of how these images were being used looking at this version: (also note the edit/revert war that occured on the page)
What would you like to change about that?
Come to conclusion about how these images may be used and adopt this as a standard accross Misplaced Pages. It is the intrepretation of fair use that is/should be discussed.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
No, please take charge and organize and push the discussion to a conclusion.

Mediator response

As much as I hate making any sort of decision on anything, it is my opinion that the images should stay out of this article until the policy is figured out. You are, of course, free to ignore me, but I think it'd be in everyone's best interest to go figure out the policy/guideline first, then argue this. I will, of course, go to unnecessary lengths to get people to look at the issue as well. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.

As an administrator, I offer my opinion that these are not copyright violations. These images have been discussed on the article Talk pages and found to be fair use. Ed doesn't like that consensus, so he is acting unilaterally to try to remove them.
Some people are more visually oriented than others. The logos are informative to the reader and they occur alongside discussion of the teams they represent.
It is common practice to use both teams' logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated and ESPN and university websites such as this one).
We have numerous articles where we use logos to represent a company or sports team or sports event discussed in the article (IBM Nebraska Cornhuskers, NASCAR, etc.)
The use of team logos can occur wherever discussion of those teams is taking place. What we happen to have chosen as the title of the article is irrelevant. The use of the logos can occur wherever the discussion occurs, regardless of the name of the article.
For example, using the logos to illustrate a contest between the two teams such as a rivalry between two teams is a perfectly valid fair use justification. (Eg. Bedlam Series) as shown in this version or Red River Shootout)
The same thing applies when the article discusses multiple games, such as those occurring over the course of a team's season. For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team contains a description of each game the Longhorns played that year. The logos of the teams they were playing are fair use alongside each game played. Before Ed removed the images, the article appeared like this. He removed the images despite previous discussion on the article's talk page.
Our policy says that fair use images are allowed when they contribute to the article and when no free alternative is available. By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos. The images are useful, and they should be kept. Johntex\ 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I believe it boils down to varying opinions on rule #8 of the fair use criteria: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The part of the clause we take issue with is the last part in the parenthesis, specifically illustrate relevant sections within the text. Having a logo in a secion that discusses that team should qualify as fair use. I understand Ed's perspective and his role on Misplaced Pages, but he is acting unilaterally and ignoring all discussions as it is his way or the highway. He was repeatedly asked to hold off on his edits until this mediation was resolved but he ignored those requests. It seems he has takes a draconian interpretation of Misplaced Pages's fair use policy that many of us believe needs further clarification.--NMajdan•talk 15:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To build on Johntex's argument, I would like to also mention the trademark aspect of these logos. It is a bit telling that this argument over logos, the epitome of TM, is being discussed as a copyright problem. While these arguments are sometimes made in tandem, they are different (as patents are different that these two). TMs, unlike CPs, never expire by duration (they do expire for other reasons, but we all know that, right?) --thus getting a free alternative is a significant problem. Trademarks are intended to be manifestations of what they symbolize. Relevant to the uses in this case, most TM litigation deals with the misuse of a mark to create a false representation of one company at the expense of another. That is clearly not the case here. Here the use of trademarks in these articles are used as representations of the discussed university athletic programs, of which there is nothing equal (that wouldn't also present a TM fair use issue). Still, when it comes down to it, we're back to Nmajdan's comment that it's a discussion of rule 8. I think this is not a mere decoration. I think this interpretation of fair use is needlessly strict. In addition, stepping into the real world (gasp, I know), I highly doubt universities would be inclined to sue Misplaced Pages for the use of their trademark in a way that's already used by the schools themselves in their annual media guides they release for promotion. --Bobak 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think trademark is a big issue. Trademark law tends to be extremely lenient: if you aren't confusing anyone, it's almost certainly not a trademark violation. But trademarks can also be subject to copyright, which is much stricter in general, so that's our primary concern here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I appear to have been listed as a party in this dispute without every having edited an article about college football (IIRC). I speculate that this is because I have somewhere offered an opinion that fair use is supposed to be used very conservatively, that making our list articles less freely reusable is not a good idea in general, and that columns of logos in lists are precisely the kind of decorative additions that WP:FUC prohibits. I suggest that using "thinks that columns of unfree images are not okay" as a criteria for inclusion in this dispute would make it unworkable, but I'll be happy to contribute further here if other editors feel that my input in particular would be valuable in some way. Jkelly 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You were included because you have are one that holds a different opinion than the three of use above and this would be a pretty one-sided issue without your presence.--NMajdan•talk 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I see the logic, but there's not a lot for me to say that I haven't already said at Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It isn't obvious to me that college football articles are a special case. Jkelly 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Its not that this applies only to college football articles. It applies to trademarked logos and there use on Misplaced Pages.--NMajdan•talk 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to note that I believe these images' use is clearly contrary to policy, if not the goals of this project. However, copyright more than any other policy is subject to rule of the Foundation, so our interpretations may be overruled. I've asked User:BradPatrick if he can spare a minute to clarify this matter, which will obviate the need for mediation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Such is your belief, "our laywer" (Bobak) has already spoken several times. Thus is the need for mediation. This is why we are here: to achieve a result. Not to rehash all the same arguments in yet another location. --MECU≈talk 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Mecu. Of course I agree with you that the images are allowed both by law and by our current policy. However, I just want to clarify a point in case you are not aware. Brad Patrick is the Wikimedia attorney. Therefore, Brad is "our laywer" in the sense that he is the only one paid to provide us with legal advice. Johntex\ 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh christ, please don't call me "our lawyer", I just throw it on my userpage to at least shed light that I've studied law successfully (saves the arguments over whether illegal computer ROMs are "legal abandonware" or other such nonsense). I go to pains on my own page to make clear I am not representing anyone. This is my opinion as a Wikipedian. Lawyers are wrong all the time, that's why there's other lawyers in this lawyer-driven adversarial common law system ;-) Anywho...--Bobak 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not know that John. Thank you for informing me. My point is that anyone can have an expert to define such items as they see fit. But if Brad is the defacto lawyer, then perhaps he would be the best mediator period. --MECU≈talk 00:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a matter of law, but of Misplaced Pages policy, so a lawyer's opinion is not worth more than anyone else's. I agree that the images are likely fair use, but they're still against Misplaced Pages policy. Let me quote it again: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Some have said that the images do "illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Well, they do, in one sense of the word illustrate. It can mean either "to provide explanation, clarify" or "to decorate, accompany as an image". The latter sense is obviously impossible in this context, however, because it flatly contradicts the following clause: the image "must not serve a purely decorative purpose". What is intended is that the images must clarify what the text says. These cannot be reasonably construed as doing so. They make the text easier to read for some (you can skim it more easily to find the team you want if you know the logos), but that's not clarification. I agree that the wording is unduly vague for something that will inevitably be interpreted legalistically, but it still has only one reasonable interpretation in my eyes.

As for Brad Patrick, he's not the de facto lawyer, he's general counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation as well as its interim CEO. If he steps in, it will be as arbitrator, not mediator: he will look over the situation, say what the answer is, and leave. I hope he does, because this will be very difficult to resolve otherwise. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Brad is general counsel, I believe that makes him the defacto laywer for this case. And yes, I misspoke calling him a mediator, arbitrator would have been a more appropriate term. I'd like to highlight an item from the Fair Use that you quoted: (the image) must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Do these images used in this case do that? I don't believe so. They clarify and explicitly provide more to the article than be merely decoration. If you look at the two versions of the article, with and without the disputed pictures, the version with images provides immediate information and clarity that the version without does not. Therefore, they are not purely decorative, are not intended as so, and thus meet the criteria for usage. --MECU≈talk 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The version with the images provides no more clarity. It provides precisely the same information except perhaps, as you say, in a fashion that's slightly more pleasant to read for some people (glancing over the logos rather than reading through the names). I don't think they contribute significantly to the article's content; they don't increase its informative value. They're just nice to have there: decoration. You seemingly disagree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My view on this specific matter is that there is such a thing as "ok amount of images" or what I call an "overkill of images." I mostly worked with some of the above users on the Texas Longhorns article. My personal view is that while using the college team's logo that is the subject of the article (not their opponents) can be a good idea. However, given how many games each college team plays for football, I personally think that using the logos of each team Foo played is an overkill. I think it distracts from the flow of the article. Will we really get sued over the logos? I do not think so? However, what I can suggest to is this: one, link to the school's article, so for those who wish to see the logo can do so or if you really, really, really think that it is not a good idea, then just use the college logo once per entry. It would be redundant to post the USC logo twice if they play USC twice, IMHO. I will craft more ideas later, until then, email me your concerns, since I do not think that I will be on the Wiki much in the next few days. User:Zscout370 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I could accept a compromise to only use the logo the first time the opposing team is played. It would be a little non-standard compared to the general practice in reporting sporting events (where both teams logos tend to be used on every game) but it would be consistent with our usual policy of wiki-linking only the first occurance of a word. Johntex\ 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I have the discussion in the proper place. My proposed clarification is specifically related to logos. Logos are different because they are trademarks that serve specifically as a representation of the team. They are also different in terms of how they are commonly used in reporting sports events, which is what I am aiming to clarify. Both the logo page and the fair use page are Guidelines, so they both have equal weight. One does not trump the other. Therefore, I put the request for clarification at the page most closely related to the point I am trying to clarify - use of logos to illustrate sporting events. Johntex\ 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The page Misplaced Pages:Fair use is a guideline. Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria, which is transcluded in WP:FU, is a policy, and that's where FUC #8 is. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - the link you gave is to policy. Never-the-less, the policy is not specific on how much is too-much or too-little with respect to using logos. Therefore, I think the logo guidelie is still the appropriate place for discussion, and I did provide a pointer from Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use so there should be no risk of anyone missing the conversation. Johntex\ 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this very recent edit by Ed g2s was highly questionable. How can you remove the athletic marks of a university on its own article page for no reason whatsoever but the edit summary, and I quote in total, "decoration". I have reverted, but this is just a prime of example of how Ed g2s is taking this policy beyond what a reasonable prudent person would think appropriate and into something that is harming Misplaced Pages articles. Maybe there's a misunderstanding because of how American universities handle sports versus the rest of the world (and it is quite different). --Bobak 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He did something similar here. On the main OU university page, the seal is at the top of the infobox and the interlocking OU logo is at the bottom. He removed the logo because is was "decorative" and then later reinserted it in a different part of the infobox. It looked much better at the bottom so I moved it back to the bottom. He takes a very broad approach to "decorative" as is seen here and is even unsure of his changes himself, as is seen by his reinserting the logo.--NMajdan•talk 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
At the OU article, it would be fine to display the official seal in the infobox, and then the athletics are being discussed, the logo used by the sports program is fine. But I wonder, should we just keep this discussion to just sports logos or all logos in general, or is it the only issues we have at the moment are at sports pages. While my personally preference is to avoid the logos at all, but this is not my WP. I think the above idea I gave could be fair for right now unless someone higher-up than any of us makes a decision. User:Zscout370 00:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, logos to differ from normal fair use images so thats what I think we are discussing here.--NMajdan•talk 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Then, it should be on a case-by-case basis, since there are sometimes where the logo should be used (such as using X's logo on the article about X), and where it should be avoided (X's logo on an article of a multi-company unnion, such as Star Alliance). Of course, they should stay on the article space only. I am sorry if this feels over simplified, but I hope this gets the "ball rolling." User:Zscout370 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this is an issue regarding official policy, I don't really see how an unofficial medcab case will solve anything. That said, I have no objections to you pursuing this matter here if you think it will help. ed g2s • talk 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have requested User:Keitei take the mediation case. If anyone objects to her, please say so and provide another mediatior to request. --MECU≈talk 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
None from my end. User:Zscout370 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


There has been a notable lack of attempt to reach a compromise in this discussion to date, so here is my suggestion of one:

  • Facts
    • Logos have a history of fair use under certain situations.
    • Logos by definition do not have a Free alternative, so fair use must be allowed if the images are to be used at all.
    • Fair use cases typically hinge not on the use of the material but on the motivation behind its use and the extent to which protected material was used (if you want me to look up case law to support this, just ask and I will).
  • Contentions
    • Mecu et al. argue that the use of logos is important to the understanding of articles relating to single season's contests between two opposing teams.
    • ed g2s et al. counter that these logos are decorative only and therefore are not protected as fair use under Misplaced Pages policy.
  • Compromise
    • Taking this information into account, I offer this as a compromise between the groups and request comment on and discussion of this suggestion:
      • Allow the use of logos for opposing teams to be limited to the team in question's current opponent (i.e. the game to be played the comming Saturday), the most recent opponent (i.e. the game played the previous Saturday/two weeks prior depending on bye-weeks), and the next following opponent (i.e. the game to be played the week/two weeks after the current Saturday depening on bye-weeks).
    • This has the following bennefits:
      • The page is illustrated and teams are identified as Mecu et al. would like.
      • The use of images covered by fair use policy is limited to three logos at most per team page.
      • This discussion is ended and the contention and bad feelings generated by it are soothed.

Please discuss this suggestion. I am disapointed by the usually curt and uncivil responses that this issue has raised. Mediation has no bearing when one or both of the parties refuse to participate in the discussion. My understanding is that Brad Patrick and Jimbo have both become aware of this discussion at some point since it began. From their lack of responses on these pages, I assume that they either have no oppinon or are willing to let the process take its course. The second option sounds more likely to me. Please, let the process work by becoming involved and adding constructive comments to the discussion. z4ns4tsu\ 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Category: