Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/High-res covers

Please don't upload them in high-res. It's a breach of the fair use policy. Thank you. - Sikon 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please explain. --School of Thrawn 101 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • He means uploading high resolution pictures of novel covers. They are fair use if they are not as detailed, in the way that a sharp image would violate a copyright, but not a smaller, fuzzier one. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Isn't the burden of proof regarding violation on the copyright holder? A website can assert fair use for a high res image just as they can for a low res image. A tried and true policy is to just scale down the image when it's uploaded, I believe. Besides, that particular interpretation isn't set in stone,'s just one of many ways of viewing the rulings in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. But those rulings never explicitly mentioned high resolution images. They just expressed opinions regarding what might be considered a violation of fair use regarding low resolution images, specifically thumbnails. I realize that erring on the side of caution is a standard practice in the wiki-world; however, the idea that high resolution images should be avoided simply because they're high resolution has very little legal precedence. (To be fair, no legal precedence in terms of explicit mention of high resolution.) --School of Thrawn 101 11:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia's fair use policy says that non-free images must be low-resolution. - Sikon 13:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Two things: 1: Bah! 2: Have we learned nothing about unilateral actions? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 11:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I support the Bah, but aren't they viewed in article at a size where it doesn't really matter anyway? Thefourdotelipsis 11:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, seconded. We never use the highres versions of the covers anyway. QuentinGeorge 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok you got me there Thrawn. Must get some sleep.... -- Riffsyphon1024 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bah, too. (Never thought I should use 'bah' as an argument, but there you go... Thrawn, Dot, and QG said it all anyway). KEJ 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Screenshots and the like are also non-free images, and we have a lot of high-res screenshots from both the movies and computer games. Should we resize all of them, too? Also, the size does matter even though the images are resized in articles—high-res is higher quality. --Imperialles 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the only point to having high-res images is to... well, to have high-res images. Isn't the fair-use justification of ANY image that it illustrates the article text? And if that text can be illustrated by a screen-res image, then couldn't anything above that be seen as unnecessary? Don't get me wrong, I love having the high-res versions available. But I'm afraid there's just not much to actually justify their existence, and they're definitely toeing the line of fair-use. -- SM-716 talk? 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying we should have to get rid of them. But... as far as being used in articles is concerned, when will a book cover ever need to be wider than 250px? Perhaps for the sake of eventualism, I could see our standard being upgraded to 300px someday, but still. Do we really need 1300px-wide covers? Do they really do anything a 500px-wide cover can't do in an article? Look, I love high-res images as much as the next guy. But I think resolution just for resolution's sake, for our purposes, is just silly. -- Ozzel 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not resolution for resolution's sake. It's about providing the best images possible. That's what we aim at with our articles, and that's what we should be aiming at with our images. --Imperialles 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I completely agree with Imperialles. - JMAS 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
        • To Imperialles: the difference being that the articles are the work of Wookieepedia's contributors, whereas the images are not. I think having high-res imagery is cool, and would hate to see it go, but I also understand it's completely copyvio. If LFL were to actually crack down on this site, a 900 x 1200 image would be a lot more difficult to defend under the guise of fair use for illustrative purposes (especially since that image will only be 250px in the article, and no more than 600px on the image page). -- SM-716 talk? 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Where does it actually say that high-res images violate fair use? Other than Wikipedia, that is. --Imperialles 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia provides this as a reference. Like all copyright law, it's all about interpretation and how well a legal team could argue their line of thinking, but I think the bit that they'd emphasize would be #3: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include... (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". It could be argued that a higher resolution image is "more" of the original copyrighted work than a low-res one, and therefore more than is needed for Wookieepedia's purposes.
              #4 could be tricky too, come to think of it: "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Let's say I REALLY love the cover art on the new issue of Star Wars: Legacy. Why would I buy the comic if I could just find a good print-res image here?
              Of course, none of this matters if LFL continues to turn a blind eye. I just want to bring up some points that may or may not have been considered. -- SM-716 talk? 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
              • SM-716, so far, the litigation concerning those statutes hasn't directly addressed high-res images. Up to this point, there hasn't really been any official judicial interpretation regarding resolution, at all. Judges issue statements that theorize on the various in's and out's of their rulings, but those statements aren't binding, from a legal perspective. Like you said, it's all about interpretation...and so far, there's no precedence ruling against high-res images. --School of Thrawn 101 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Moreover, not only is there no clear legal position against it, LFL knows we're here and knows what we're doing. And they have not seen fit to object. Let's not screw quality in an attempt to fix what's not broken. Havac 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.