Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content/Archive 10

2666:

agency (United States Post Office Department) and are in the public domain. Stamps issued subsequent to July 1, 1971 are copyrighted by the United States Postal Service and cannot be used without prior permission. This is especially true of stamps that may depict the intellectual property, logos, products or insignias of agencies who licensed them to the USPS. Other stamp-issuing entities also have copyrighted recent designs (last 20 years or so, give or take, depending on agency). Users should be advised to check with the issuing agency before snagging a scan, graphic or design from a web site, or scanning and uploading a stamp design themselves, new or used. (I write for the philatelic media and also work peripherally with the USPS, who actively defends misuse of their copyrighted stamp designs.)

1356:

front. Knowledge (XXG) content mirrors are one of the banes of the internet, and if they all got shut down for violating copyright, I for one would be quite happy. Even excluding wikipedia from google searches doesn't remove the rot of opportunistic wikipedia mirrors, since some seem to be designed so as to not go away when you remove wikipedia from the terms. I don't see why we should go out of our way, to the point of making wikipedia less useful, of helping out organizations that are themselves basically detrimental to the distribution of knowledge, and are basically just there to get picked up by search engines so people click on their ads. I understand that the GFDL license allows them to do this, but I don't see why we ought to take any care for their well-being.

4890:"publishing" of copyrighted material (like showing a DVD cover) is a copyright violation, but a copyright violation is not illegal if it is deemed "fair use". And whether a given use is "fair" or not depends a great deal on the mood of the presiding judge. There is simply no way of determining with 100% certainty whether a use is "fair" or not, unless the copyright-holder sues, and a judge makes a ruling. And frequently, two judges in different districts will make completely contradictory rulings on nearly-identical cases. It is very unusual for these cases to make it to trial: copyright-holders frequently don't sue when there's no commercial stake, and even when they do the cases are almost always settled out of court. 1147:

specifically his book covers in the appropriate sections, and thus are permissable. The other images are either free (Government sourced) or released under various suitable licensing. The Limbaugh pictures did not illustrate any specific points in an acceptable manner, but a small image of one of his book covers for example could be permissable as is the case in the Franken article. For the Malken Fox news image, as it's a small article already, with one free image, there isn't a need to have that extra fair use screen shot of her simply talking on Fox news. It would be like having an extra image of Sean Hannity on his article showing him talking on Fox News--extraneous fair use images are to be removed. ·

4272:) encyclopedia and I believe in tightening fair use.... But the above counterexample is out of place, completely. First, it's too broad, vague, and general (needs re-wording, badly). Second, it has no reasoning behind it (user will immediatly ask, why?). Third, it's not clarifying the situation and does not help people to understand what's fair use. It is making policy. Fourth, it's more like Knowledge (XXG) policy and not U.S. copyright law (which is what the rest of the page talks about). Fifth, there is no solid policy behind it. This line is the only thing that's against such images (plus loose interpretation of FUC). My suggestion: 4927:

policy is available, I just don't see the value of removing images from articles based on one editor's interpretation of the policy and then having them put back again based on another's interpretation. I just got into a discussion about this with someone who had good arguments for the removal of the image, but there are good arguments for retaining it, as well. Unfortunately, neither of us can point the other to a specific, incontrovertible answer to the question, which is frustrating. My practice of patience—with very good reason—is definitely non-notable; I will endeavor to practice some for now. Thanks again.

4590:

It is well known that some administrators, once they get the extra buttons, tend to move away from editting articles and toward administrative tasks, policy questions, etc. It takes different types of people to build the encyclopedia. As far as vote stacking - I haven't seen any flagrant vote stacking by "portal editors" though I will admit I haven't gone looking for it. This vote has been publicized both here and to other pages. Your posting back here again could possibly be seen as an attempt at vote stacking, though. Especially since you did not use neutral language in your posting.

702:

for yourself from listening to the music, your notation is - by definition - a duplicate of that original whether you've seen it or not (probable a mechanical copyright only though). You can't release your notation as PD, GFDL or anything as the copyright remains in the *content* of the notation, not in the notation itself, and that right is probably the authorised publishers (which might have geographic limits). I would think that an assertation of fair use would be reasonable where an extract (as in your example) is used, but not if it were the whole or a major part of the piece. --

3980:"Any product which can be seen in a store is obviously within reach of someone with a camera." Not necessarily. Some products in stores cost well over what an amateur is willing to pay just to make a Free photograph (e.g. a Blu-ray Disc drive for $ 1,000), and the owner of the store bans the use of cameras on the store, which is private property. Some products are not even sold in the same country as a given Knowledge (XXG) editor (e.g. a video game console that is not available for sale in the United Kingdom). -- 1924:

show people what the candidate looks like. I can't imagine us possibly getting into any legal difficulties over use of such an image. But Knowledge (XXG) fair use policy is run by people who don't think wikipedia should allow any fair use, so there's not much to be done. I would recommend just putting in a fair use image, and ignoring the rules hobgoblins here who probably won't notice it, given the large number of fair use images on wikipedia that certainly don't comply with their understanding of fair use.

1121:, but let me be absolutely clear. The wikipedia projects are about *open* content that is free to use and *re-use*. Every time 'fair use' is claimed for an image it is another occasion that the article and image are *not* free for re-use as they stand. I've no idea what pov you are trying to push, but I'm solely considering what level of freedom we are offering. When free images which can replace copyrighted ones are available the free ones are the ones which must be used. -- 1340:

all these policy pages something to the effect of "Note: Fair use might be inapplicable because Knowledge (XXG) has a higher standard of encouraging free content alternatives". And I separately wonder why Knowledge (XXG)'s policies care so much about content mirrors, under copyright law and generally it's fundamentally their problem, it's almost as if these other "sites" want Knowledge (XXG) to do their work for them and somehow this has been made Knowledge (XXG) policy.

31: 3955:

no fair use images should be used for 1. any people who are possibly alive, and 2. any object which possibly exists. This is unreasonable, and its unreasonableness is obvious, leading to hair-splitting debates between people over whether something is a reasonable expectation or not. Anything which involves stalking someone for a good photo is not reasonable—even if we have members of paparazzi as members of Knowledge (XXG).

1076:, respectively. Both from government sources. However, one editor keeps replacing the Limbaugh one with a copyrighted image, and keeps reinserting an unneeded copyrighted image into the Malkin article. I feel that per the fair use policy in both cases the free ones are to be used, and the copyrighted second image in the Malkin case is not needed. Where does policy fall for a final decision in both cases? Thanks. · 356:"Knowledge (XXG) permits the use of 'fair use' content only under very restricted circumstances where the image or content is, in essence, not repeatable. ie. it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, include an historical event, but a publicity still of a vehicle or living person can be replaced comparatively easily." 1992:

the problem is that there are some very different classes of media here, from media that really would have to be defended by a fair use claim if an infringement suit was brought to "We are republishing this because we know (or think) that the copyright holder wouldn't mind us doing so, but it isn't freely reusable". We should think about something that encompasses the entire spectrum.

2829:"(Technical) a measure of the ability to distinguish between two close but not identical values of the property being measured; it is expressed as the difference in values of a property necessary to make such a distinction; as, a microscope with a resolution of one micron; a thermometer with a resolution of one-tenth of a degree." 3182:. Again, you failed to ascertain the resolution of the images, which is 4 pixels per millimeter or about 100 ppi. It should state that on each image page. The images are different from the previous, not similar as you state. I note that you did not mention that in your posting above. This discussion is about high and low resolution, not your dispute with me.-- 735:

since, again, the person behind the camera is usually unknown. However, news sources routinely use these photographs with impunity, since a copyright-holder who doesn't want to be known as such will not sue for infringement. Even the FBI, in its publications, uses photographs of unknown (or unspecified) origin, for the same reason. (These are often tagged

935:. For those unfamilair with this issue orphan works are just as copyrighted as anything else (for now) and they will have to be allowed in under Fair Use. I do feel we should have a way for for orphan works to be allowed in the Fair Use Criterai. But I believe it is important we also have guidelines set-up to evaluate what an orphan work 2184:, becoming slightly more GFDL and slightly less fair use), now is the appropriate time to take a cool look at the reasons for where we are heading. Should we in fact ban fair use completely perhaps, because our policy should be straightforward, easily enforceable and policed, and also so that it will be easier to eventually integrate to a 3794:

information. But, if the image presents 1000 times more detail than a reader needs to understand the point an editor is making when he (or she) uses an image, then we are beyond the firm ground of Fair Use and into swampy ground, I believe. And this would be true no matter how many dots per inch or picture elements an image presented.

4949:

re-invent the wheel all over again. Additionally if we put together a coherent discussion of the issues it gives us something to point to if people want explanations of a policy. It is a bit time-consuming but in the end I think it is the only long-term way to have any sort of coherent policy with something as vague as "fair use" law. --

998:) so maybe as a start we could have 3 options: allow fair use images but under very restricted conditions as Jimmy Wales suggests above, don't allow fair use images as most Wikipedias in the world seem to do (which would seem to be easiest to harmonize worldwide) - or thirdly to allow them under US copyright law as at present. 4351:, which seems to consist largely of people who are big on deleting images as being inappropriate under fair use. Any image which is actually a straight up "publicity photo" is going to be perfectly appropriate under fair use. If we want to ban them anyway, for whatever reason, it shouldn't be called a "fair use policy." 3617::). The words that we use have specific definitions and that makes communication possible and common. I wonder if you have some particular vested interest in making up your own definition. I would say you are the one embarrassed for some reason here. I hope that you can get over it. But maybe that is not possible.-- 1301:

within Knowledge (XXG) under the legal concept of "fair use". Just because a free content alternative can be created doesn't mean fair use doesn't apply for something, though that point is not as important as clearly conveying to readers the nuances and differences between "fair use" and "free content" generally.

4739:, because it emphasizes that the main criteria for 'quality' is how informative it is, and not how nice the picture looks. The Robin Williams image we have is clearly is a poorer quality image than the promo shot, but it is as informative, as it conveys how Robin Williams looks like as well as the promo shot. 3459:. I feel bad that users such as yourself misunderstood this situation, and I'd like to avoid such conflicts in the future. However this is not vital since it is users such as yourself who've made the "resolution definition" mistake. What current guidelines and policy says is accurate, and not in error. -- 557:, however that would create a HUGE page. Personally, I believe the correct way is modifying the fair use copyright tags to add a warning that the image will be deleted in a 2/6 month timeframe, and that a free replacement is expected to be found. As a sidenote, I really like the "unrepeatable" wording. -- 4602:

Personally, it is obvious that any amendment will pass if it allows editors to increase the amount of available options for them, especially with Fair use being such a gray area. Maybe it would be possible to limit the amount of fair use images to one or two per portal, at least to prevent abuse such

4589:

OK, thank you. Perhaps I read too much into your comments. If so, I apologize. I just think that we have to try to be careful to welcome people who contribute in different ways. Even if some of those people are primarily (only) active in portal space, it is still part of editing the encyclopedia.

4560:

I don't think it is a very good idea to classify people as "bemused portal editors". That would seem to show a profound disrespect for your fellow Wikipedians. Just because you don't agree with the consensus is no reason to go sticking labels on people. I know that a lot of people who have expressed

3757:

I'm not sure what "width x height" you mean, the two of them together form a ratio which is called 'aspect ratio', such as television's 5 x 4 (often written 5 to 4 or 5:4 or sometimes 5 units of width vs. 4 units of height). Whereas ratio would talk about hight and width, resolution would talk about

3055:

Strictly speaking, resolution refers to the property of dots per unit surface area. The size and scaling of an image are other properties. I edit images all the time, so one really needs to understand the differences to get the effect you desire with image editing software. I agree that one needs at

2994:

Usually, the term "resolution" when used in reference to digitized images refers to the size, not the pixels per inch, because really, saving something at 72ppi vs 300ppi makes no difference to how it's displayed on a monitor; it only affects the printed output. Besides, there's nothing that prevents

2695:

Currently, we have phrasing in the that says "Fair use on Knowledge (XXG) only applies if it is not possible to replace such an image with a free image," which isn't true as far as the law goes, only a matter of wikipedia's policy. I feel like we need to reword things so as not to confuse people into

1339:

I am saying that the waters need not and should not be murky. Having a policy page titled "Fair use criteria" that confuses the concepts of fair use and the encouragement of free content is one thing that perpetuates this murkiness. Basically, Knowledge (XXG) needs a giant fat red warning sentence on

920:

If evidence suggests that an author is deliberately anonymous (as opposed to merely unknown to the uploader), then I think it ought to be good enough to indicate that and explain what is known about the authorship. I'll let others decide how the policy should be tweaked to address circumstances like

701:

Hmmmn. Interesting one. The original composer of the music has copyright in the composition itself and will have presumably written down a score/notation at some point (if they didn't we can assume someone their music published authorised did so). Whether you copy from a written source or work it out

4720:

Just sa "alternative that convey the same information" or something like that. Otherwise there is no end to the "fanboyish" cries of outrage when a glossy promo shot of theyr favourite celebrety is replaced by a candid photo from some public apperance. "Oh noez! That photo looks like crap, she's not

4573:

I do not see it as an offensive "label". They are, in the majority, portal editors I assume (discounting yourself, and your "quality before free content" philosophy) and they often leave messages here complaining about not being able to use Fair Use. Just looking at the first seven voters after you,

4236:

If our intention is to improve the Wiki, we need good reasons for selectively or completely abandoning 'fair use', a settled policy in the English language Knowledge (XXG) under which (AFAIK) the project has become very popular, the most popular by far. Otherwise we will be sacrificing our hard work

2665:

It is stated in the article that stamps and currency can be used illustratively, which is a bit general and somewhat misleading. In the case of U.S. stamps, images for stamps issued prior to the founding of the United States Postal Service (July 1, 1971) are considered to be issued by a governmental

2188:

Or should we adopt Jimmy Wales's idea and carefully define very limited circumstances where non-free images are acceptable in the English Knowledge (XXG) - but won't this make integration with non-English wikipedias more difficult? IMO these are important issues. We shouldn't rush into a simple name

408:

So to summarize clunkily, I'd say this: "Any photo of a living person, for whom there is no special circumstance making photography of that person particularly difficult, should not be used under a "fair use" claim -- unless that photograph is showing a non-repeatable circumstance which is important

4707:

Alternate leaves too much room for clearly inferior "alternates" to be used as an excuse to remove a justifiably fair use image. For example, US satelite photos are in the public domain for most of the world, but the presence of these "alternate" images shouldn't be acceptable to preclude use of a

4539:

seems to be winding up. Naturally a gathering of bemused portal editors have formed an apparent consensus that we need to allow even more Fair Use on Knowledge (XXG) where it's not really needed, however I still fail to see how decoration glorified navigation pages falls within our "very restricted

4374:

I can understand that an image copyrighted in the US, under the US laws, can be subject of the US law about fair use as well. But what about images whose copyright belongs to someone at another country, without fair use laws or anything similar? Can fair use be employed at such circumstances, or is

4346:

have a "fair use" policy that bears only the slightest relation to actual fair use law, if that. We should either use the actual legal definition of fair use, or we should call this policy something else. If the latter, there should actually broad discussion of the issue beyond the small group of

4030:

can: Knowledge (XXG) has several hundred thousand active editors, editing in almost two hundred languages, from everywhere in the world. Just because a video game console isn't available in the UK doesn't mean it's not available in the US, or in Japan. And just because you can't afford to spend a

3958:

I think we should either 1. prune this sentence back or 2. heavily clarify what it is supposed to mean. If there's an edict ruling that all fair use photographs of people who are living need to be removed from Knowledge (XXG), I think we need to open that up to a much wider discussion, because that

3954:

People can be just as rare, just as hard to get a good photo of, especially when we are talking about official portraits or promotional shots. When we have free alternatives, we should privilege them and feel free to remove copyrighted versions, but I don't think that FUC#1 is intended to mean that

3540:

Ned Scott, I edit images for web and printing all the time. I find the definition stated on the link cited by Fastfission to be unclear and at odds with the english language and professional usage. Resolution and size need to be applied as seperate concepts. Thus, the definition is in great need of

3102:

The reason why I scaled the image is that if users are able to print the whole thing and do not have to visit a CoS center to get the same information, which is possibly pay for, we will destory the market value of this. while that is far-fetched, that is one reason that this image could fail under

795:

Realistically, we can't definitively identify the actual copyright holder for almost any work. If the copyright isn't specifically attributed, we don't know whether the work was work for hire or not, and even if there is a specific attribution, we can't say that there hasn't been a rights transfer

4926:

answer regarding the use of DVD covers (among the many other issues with regard to the use of images and other media), could we please call a halt to the removal of images that—with good rationale on both sides of the argument—might or might not qualify as fair use? Unless and until a more precise

4651:

is revived, this time for a concrete proposal. The talk page has been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express

3783:

I'm talking about size, not aspect ratio... the image does not need to be larger or any more detailed than needed in order for it to fulfill it's role in the article. Do you not use your perception when editing an article? A conscious understanding of something? Generally recognized to be true? As

3690:

The first reference you mentioned states in part:"6 a : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b : a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display,

1991:

A name that doesn't confuse people into conflating United States doctrine and Knowledge (XXG) policy would certainly have its advantages. Unfortunately, I think we would just get a whole different kind of confusion if we use "unfree" or "not free". "Restricted use"? "Unlicensed"? One aspect of

1923:

That's nonsense. Of course it's fair use. Whether they comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s far more restrictive fair use rules (which are, in practice, applied even more restrictively than they are written), I don't know, but publicity photos of candidates are created in order to be used to, you know,

1856:

Probably not, unless the photo is of great historic significanse to that particular election, but then again that would rule out a generic headshot. There is also the replacable aspect. There should be plenty of oppotunities for someone to take a free licensed photo of a politician, if there is an

1102:

Neither of these images are acceptable images. The Malkin image is not adequate resolution to crop and it is a group image. The Limbaugh image is from 1994 and is not an accurate representation. I suspect there is some ulterior motivation for removal of the fair use images and this policy is being

4827:

While it's often useful to have things discussed back and forth on Knowledge (XXG), there are real issues regarding fair use that need definitive answers, not unending discussions with regard to how Knowledge (XXG) policy is interpreted by one individual's interpretation of the policy vs. another

3946:

FUC#1, as I understand the rationale behind it, is designed to make sure that people don't use "fair use" indiscriminately. It is designed to make sure that we don't use "fair use" photographs where we could generate a free one, or just use "fair use" because we are lazy. I agree with all of that

2965:

72 pixels/inch (for old monitors) and 96ppi (for new) are "web resolution." At 72ppi, a DVD cover, for instance, is about 360px wide and 500px high. For things that are illegible or lose significant details at 72dpi, 96ppi might be better. Anything under 150ppi looks terrible when printed, but

1355:

I completely agree with Zen Apprentice here. Both on the "We should be clear on the distinction between what is allowed on fair use and what wikipedia policy encouraging free content allows " business and also on the "Why on earth should I care about content mirrors? Let them do their own work"

1295:

I think these policy pages should do a much better job of disassociating between someone making a "fair use claim" and seperately explaining the reasons why Knowledge (XXG) chooses free content alternatives (regardless of fair use or not). People have preconcieved notions about "Fair use" and the

734:

I feel we should be able to use these images on Knowledge (XXG), and I think policy should be altered to say this. Our policy currently allows just about no photographs of any terrorists (pre-captivity), since we don't usually know who took the photograph. It allows no stills from al-Qaida tapes,

579:

The category itself is not useful. There is no simple way of browsing it. In example, I own a determined artifact. To see if someone needs a free picture of such artifact, I would have to browse through thousands of images, 200 at the time, and waiting until the thumbnails load. There should be a

300:

There was a query regarding the status of the first three paragraphs which I added a while ago in discussion with other editors and Jimbo (see above). As I understand that questions have been raised about this I quote below the relevant lines from the IRC conversation concerned. Most of the early

4341:

I don't understand why a non-free picture of a living person would fail FUC#1. It is not very easy to get a free picture of a lot of living people at all. It is incredibly difficult to get a free picture for a lot of public figures that "adequately gives the same information" as certain unfree

2596:

I think the word "easily" is not a good word choice here. It is a fair amount of work to search for people selling discontinued models of headphones on e-Bay and then keep contacting them until a seller agrees to take their time to make a photo and upload it. It is even more time to do this in

2211:

This isn't a policy change we're discussing; just a name page. We have a policy on the use of non-free images that disallows many images we could legally use (and we always have). So why should we call it a "fair use" policy, when the U.S. legal definition of fair use is only a small part of the

308:

It should be possible for someone to create or find a freely licensed replacement for this fair use work, and this should be done as soon as is practical. Please request a replacement by adding {{tl:Replacethisimage}} in the image captions or on the talk page of the article(s) where this work is

4838:

So, how does one go about obtaining the "real" answers? We can discuss these issues forever. In the meantime, there are images on Knowledge (XXG) that don't belong here; other images are being deleted that are within the actual fair use policy but the policy is being misinterpreted. Unless more

3793:

Indeed, when editing and when reading and when viewing an image I perceive and my perception should be enough to understand the point an editor is making when he (or she) includes an image. To fulfil Fair Use, I don't need to perceive greater detail than that needed to understand the article's

3103:

fair use. However, looking at the relevant policies we have, I determined that the image is causing major violations of fair use and serves no benefit to the encyclopedia, hence the image is now gone. It had no source, the intent is for people to download and spread from the original uploading.

1300:

confuse the two a lot in my interpretation. Instead of "Fair use criteria" it should be called "Criteria for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)" which should be a superset of the former. In my interpretation a "Fair use criteria" page's scope should be limited to only what would qualify for inclusion

4465:

If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from

4246:

has given a very insightful analysis of the situation regarding 'celebrity' images. I have personal experience of the points made as I had been trying, and am still trying but without success so far, to obtain a freely licensed image for a Knowledge (XXG) biography. Seemingly, the difficulties

2198:

Looking at all the discussions, I don't think it's possible to get a consensus on that kind of change. (either more restricted or less restricted) Unless it comes from Jimbo or the foundation. With this change, basically nothing changes but the name. I don't really see the problem with foreign

1146:

As I told you on the talk page its nothing to do with politics, but your bringing up Al Franken (I presume, by the Franken reference) indicates that may be your primary concern, rather than copyright protection for Knowledge (XXG). The three Fair Use images of Al Franken are used to illustrate

533:

For reference, whilst the conversation had moved on to images of people it started off being about the number of promo images being used of cars and (USA) buildings where it would be such a simple matter to walk down the road or visit a dealership to get a *free* image that we couldn't see any

4948:

IMO the best way to arrive at "definitive answers" is to try and come up with guidelines that people are happy with, that make some sense, and then move forward from there. Otherwise all of our talking will just be repeated in a month or two when the same question comes up, and we'll have to

4195:

if we, or Jimbo, are going to decide, "No un-free images of living celebrities", period, then let's do this. Take the lame "fair use" condition out of it. Forget "reasonably", since Knowledge (XXG) is under no obligation to be reasonable in this instance. Call this "Knowledge (XXG) image use

3950:

But there are limits to expectations about reasonable access. Any product which can be seen in a store is obviously within reach of someone with a camera. Things get dodgier when we start talking about items available only to the super-rich or in incredibly limited supply. At some point the

4889:

Now about the law: since Knowledge (XXG) servers are (mostly) on U.S. soil, Knowledge (XXG) generally only has to worry about adhering to U.S. copyright law. The limits of "fair use" is one of the most murky and contentious areas of U.S. copyright law. Basically, any unlicensed "copying" or

110:

Question: I put an image of a magazine cover on an author's page, because the author's story is listed on the cover (it is the cover story), and because the magazine is prominently mentioned on the author's page as the place where most of the author's stories have been published. I assumed,

2832:

As you see, it has NOTHING to do with SIZE. Your scaling down of the image made it unreadable. The original image was 72 pixels per inch which is low resolution. As a point of information, I do website design and edit images all the time. 300 pixels per inch or more would be considered

4072:

I agree with Fastfission. This policy change needs some major discussion. I'm happy to go with the "no fair use of humans whatsoever", but only so long as that is absolutely clear. While the current mishmash of policy exists, I will argue against this policy, as it is profoundly stupid.

2953:

My rule of thumb is that any image of a size suitable only to illustrate a Knowledge (XXG) page (400 pixels by 400 pixels, ie. 4 inches at 96dpi) is low-resolution, while any image large enough to replace at least some of the copyright holders's market for an image is high-resolution.

3740:

Of note, search for the word "per" in the article to see if anything that might be pixels per something shows up. None of the article text even includes the word per or describes display resolution as pixels per some kind of unit. Instead resolution is constantly defined as width x

3568:

If you'll all look up the page a little bit you can see that we started to try and hammer out some reasonable and sensible guidelines to this awhile back. Perhaps these can be used as a point of departure as they go over already a lot of the distinctions you are trying to make. See

3371:

Yes, there's no point inventing our own definition of "High Resolution." If it's the same size on the screen as it is in reality (72ppi for old monitors and 96ppi for new), it's low (or "web") resolution -- it can't be printed at more than 1/4-1/3 of original size without losing

2100:

Whatever we use, it shouldn't be "Fair Use". "Unfree" is not perfect, neither is "restricted" (GFDL and CC could be considered "restricted"), but I don't think there are any better adjectives, and they are definitely a big improvement over "Fair Use" which is just plain wrong.

4881:

The "real" answer regarding Knowledge (XXG) policy has to be hashed out over lots of discussion, like you said, and might change over time. But even if the situation is legal, we can't use DVD covers if it's against policy. And if that's still being worked out, then there

345:"Fair use" is a doctrine which permits the use of copyrighted matter and images for other purposes under a restricted set of circumstances. It is not a general blanket permission to use text, images or other materials freely without consideration of their copyright status. 4218:

For my part, I can think of 2 reasons to tighten up on images of living people (both of which I mentioned earlier in this forum). I can see a case for banning images completely in Knowledge (XXG) biographies of living people to create a level playing field as I outlined

682:

the "composer," since they didn't notate the music)? I've been unsure as to what tag to use for uploaded examples when the music is copyrighted, but I notated the music (as in I listened to the music and notated it myself, rather than copying it from another source). --

4466:

original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way; however, a drawing or painting loosely based on multiple photographs could presumably be made.

1103:

used as an excuse. If I was trying to remove the 3 fair use images from Franken's page, since there are 2 free images there, a loop hole in this policy would be found to allow those fair use images. Thank you for reminding me what type of environment I'm editing in. --

3765:

When talking in this manner we are talking about what a human being perceives and we are not talking about what the hardware presents for the human being to perceive. I believe you are saying that the law and our guidelines talk about what a human being perceives ?

2995:

me from opening an image in Photoshop and changing the ppi. Thus, on the web, a "low resolution" image is something that looks good on screen, but can't be printed adequately. A 300x300 image is fine on screen, but prints at only 1x1 inch, which is of limited use.

3951:

reasonability of replacing the copyrighted product with a free substitute begins to reach zero. There are possibilities that someone might have access to free photographs of incredibly rare things which exist today, but those opportunities cannot be relied upon.

1875:

Flickr could help in the search, or emailing the campaigns for a freely licensed photo could work. If the politicians could find a way to get their names and faces known, they will sieze it, so I would not be surprised if the campaigns are willing to help out. :)

4877:

Well, there are two sorts of "real" answers, and I'm not sure which one you want. There is the "real" answer about Knowledge (XXG) policy, and there is the "real" answer of legal issues. (There are lots of things which are legal, but are against Knowledge (XXG)

3476:

Then, I would suggest we stop using the word "resolution" to describe the criteria that you allude to. Because that word has a specific meaning in the english language, we can eliminate confusion by using a another term to describe the criteria for a Fair Use

730:

except for #10, in that they do not specify the copyright-holder of the image. I could list dozens, possibly hundreds of images that are important and useful, but where the copyright holder has intentionally made it difficult to prove who produced the images.

3732:

The display resolution of a digital television or computer display can be an ambiguous term especially as displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in picture-tube (CRT) and flat panel or projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel)

2892:

This fails not on resolution, but on the fact that it's 1. not released promo material and 2. not used in an article. Sears publishes a catalog, but the entire thing isn't being released to the media to republish. If we're using it as source for an article,

3245:

I propose that the guideline be expressed in both metric and english measurements. I propose that the threshold of high resolution be at 10 pixels per millimeter, which is 254 pixels per inch. Any image resolution at or above that would be classed as high

1845:

I've read the policies on fair use but I'm still not quite sure about this. Is it possible to use an image (a generic head shot) of an important public person -a politician- to ilustrate an article about upcoming elections? Does it qualifies as fair use?

3702:

No.. that last part is an example of the word in action.. Look at another definition on that same site, they'll take the word and place it in an example in that same format. It's not apart of the definition, it's an example of using the word. DPI is a

3573:. I think it gets around a lot of the problems you are raising and provides a very reasonable framework for discussing individual images (as well as some references to the legal side of it), though of course I would say that since I wrote it up. ;-) -- 167:

The trouble is, an episode list will have many episodes, and if each episode has an image, then that would be too many "fair use" images in a single article. It's a good rule of thumb to have no more than three "fair use" images in any one article. –

155:

Can there be Fair use images on episode lists?? The images on the episode lists improve the article, and the images can idenitfy the key points of the episode, the summary can do that too, but some people like to see whats going on in the episode.

3947:

aspect of it. It evolved, as I understand it, out of concerns that people would use "fair use" photographs to illustrate commonplace things — i.e. using a copyrighted photograph of a table to illustrate a table. No reason to do it — get rid of it.

943:

is worth reading, if a bit tedious. It does have alot of valuble detailed discussion on the issue, so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Perhaps we need to develop an orphan works criteria as an alternate to declaring the copyright

2760:

about whether a 72 dpi image is too high resolution to qualify for fair use (or alternately, whether it is so self-evidently low that to call it high resolution qualifies as a personal attack). I'd like to chime in, but I have no idea. Thanks,

2809:

I went ahead and replaced this scan with a scaled down version, manage to shave 350KB from it, but if the community wants it gone, make it gone. Plus, I believe a source is missing. Where was this booklet taken from (either offline or online).

4196:

criteria" instead of "fair use". To keep misusing the term "fair use" like this is to invite confusion and resentment — not to mention psuedo-legal or legal arguments — from people. Policy should be clear, direct and unambigious as possible.

4247:

involved in obtaining such images are of no account to administrators enforcing the new 'policy.' Finally, and I've asked this in several places (including the Foundation mailing list) with no success:: does anyone yet have details of the

3281:

goes beyond normal fair use requirements and is more strict about them. Two, we're not reinventing our own definition. Resolution is not defined by DPI. However, this is a common misconception, so I can see justification in clearing this

3072:

Several editors argue that it is "high resolution" as that term is used in the fair use policy because it would be much more than 72dpi when viewed at a scale likely to be used as an illustration on a wikipedia page (about 2-3 inches

677:

template should be used for licensing), or should I release my work into the public domain? Or is it a different kind of fair use? Who owns the copyright to sheet music, the person who notates it, or the composer (if you want to call

1594:

Why wouldn't they? It'd be no different than if you took the whole set down to look for one entry in each book. Plus, if you put them back, there'd be no harm, no foul. Certainly easier than making at good fair use claim for it.

3707:

of resolution, hence the example. This is very common for a dictionary. You've missed the point entirely. Not only that, but you've managed skip past and ignore all the actual definitions which back up everything that I've said

4519:

or not. It is an attempt at simplifying into practical terms what is a very difficult legal question. There is always a floating line between what is considered a new work and a derivative work; this attempts to boil it down.

3844:

It looks fine to me. I think hardcoding limits is arbitrary and as such very difficult to justify. Even on its longest face the image is only 412 pixels which I think is well within the limits of it not being high-resolution.

483:

tag would become useless. After the 2nd reversion, I end up on doing a ifd nomination. Maybe, for cases where a fair use claim would be very unlikely (like pictures of objects and living persons) we could have something like

4621:

Well, we posted a neutrally worded notification of the vote to at least 2 policy pages plus the village pump. We could also post the same notice to all the portals if you want more participation from interested parties.

790:

In cases where the copyright holder cannot be determined or specifically identified, the image must have full attribution of (1) its source and (2) all available information regarding the identity of any likely copyright

3583:

If we could also directly comment on the misuse of DPI (or PPI) for defining high or low resolution outside of printed material, that'd be awesome. I'd like to help out in any way that I can with the definition page. --

543:

I don't think those are at all controversial. I've been routinely listing car images, etc., on WP:CV, and they've been deleted each time. So it's good to make it explicit, but I think we're all on the same page there. –

3090:

An accurate summary of the discussion, indeed. I think our next steps should probably be something like an RfC on how to re-define "high def" since there is clearly a good faith misunderstanding here on the wording. --

2860:

A "brochure" is not a reliable source. The fact that you are using it to reference the article is questionable. Images in Knowledge (XXG) are to show or demonstrate points in articles, not to be used as references. --

3266:

Well, that is what resolution is. The Fair Use doctrine uses the word which has a common english definition. I find it highly objectionable to invent our own definition when the intent is to comply with Fair Use.

1091:

I have answered on the talkpages for both articles. I would completely agree that the free images should be used in preference to the non-free ones, and have suggested that the first one is edited for improvement.

3969:

What you say makes sense and I'd have to agree. We have articles about people where no one actually knows where they live now, let alone how to even contact them about releasing a photo under a free-license. --

2696:

thinking that enforcing policy is actually enforcing the law. I've seen too many cases of overzealous copyright paranoia claiming that we're going to break the law if we use images that aren't strictly policy.

2624:

So is it notable for the text of an article that the former manufacturer of a discontinued product and all owners of the product who have been contacted refuse to allow a Free picture of the product to be made?

2297:? Whatever we do we should try and keep it simple and to the point (and easy to direct people to and find). Though most of the page regards images, the policy applies to more than just images (or even media). -- 396:

copyrighted "fair use" images of living people on Knowledge (XXG), I'd strongly recommend dealing with the obvious cases first -- people who are commonly photographed -- before dealing with the tough cases like

717:

There are a number of photographs which we can presume are copyrighted, but where the copyright-holder has intentionally obscured the source of the image. As examples, note the photographs allegedly taken by

284:

This is where the "limited number" thing comes into play. I'd say unless it's a significant logo change, delete the rest. If image A does the same job as image B in the article, then image B fails WP:FUC. --

2931:

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Knowledge (XXG) policy.

373:

which was followed by the rest of the text. I trust that this satisfies people and we can get back to removing the images tagged as 'fair use' for which it is comparatively straight-forward to get a totally

3997:

I don't think $ 1000 is a high-enough cap to say that it is out of the realm of possibility. I bet if you left a note on the talk page of the product it would eventually get seen by someone who owned one.

3420:

the concept of resolution. We use resolution for how sharp an image is, how much detail can be seen, etc. We only use fair use images as large or as detailed as they need to be, and no more than that. --

4791:#1, if these martial arts moves could be performed, filmed, and released under a free license (and they could), then we can not use non-free media depicting them. They should probably have been tagged 4536: 3161:. I am not familar with images. My comments have been about the copyright notice stating in regards to "low resolution okay" while the link offers that a user may "download a high resolution image". 4401:

That's just regarding whether or not we should consider material made in countries who are not members of international copyright regimes to be without copyright at all (i.e. in the public domain). --

4976:

that I'm wondering about. We've been discussing some enhancements to the infobox to better support using logos as names, and I want to be sure I'm not wasting my time before I start coding. TIA. --

4444:

cannot invoke a US law for their own defense. If you are being sued in a US court, then you could invoke the US law, which makes no distinction to where the location of the copyright's origin was. --

1465: 860:

And that sort of thing would still fail FUC #1; as long as we enforce that criterion, this opening would be limited to situations where a free replacement would honestly be out of the question. --

3030:

It prints at 1"x1" at a resolution of 300ppi. If it were printed at 100ppi, it would be 3"x3" but really fuzzy or pixelated. But a 3"x3" image scanned at 300dpi will display at 9"x9" on screen.

3256:

An exact measurement like this won't work. The point in my recommending an RfC for rewording is to point out that we're not defining pixels per inch, and to think we are is a misconception. --

2568:] is now claiming that the images are not repeatable becaue they are no longer on sale. I still think one could easily get pictures of these (email someone selling one on eBay, for example)... 3570: 2882:

This is a very silly discussion. This is an image of text that's being used, rather than a "true" image. The text is violating our fair use policy, regardless of technical image details. --

388:

Thanks for posting this. I just want to highlight Jimbo's statement that "it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here". There is gray area. Although

4777:

The clips have been listed at the speedy deletion category for well over 12 hours now, and I suspect that other admins (like me) are unusure exactly as to the rules here - advice please? --

1314:

It seems to me that what you are saying is that these are murky waters, and more consistency and clarity in aims and procedures would help editors to take forward the project and with less

473:

Yes, indeed. But I've being doing this for months and I assure you it's sometimes too unproductive and frustrating. Editors would simply revert the image removal from the article, and the

3604:

Common misconception. You've been caught with your pants down, as you so obviously misunderstood the real definition of resolution. You're embarrassed, I understand, but get over it. --

4774:. To summarize, AU believes that 2-3 second clips showing a martial arts move from copyrighted but low quality and easily obtainable video are NOT fair use; Pereza beleives otherwise. 2091:

This name change would make it clearer that the whole point is about building a free content encyclopedia, and not about keeping us court-safe while building an informative website. --

1016:

The advantage of a unified policy is that eventually we can perhaps more easily create a better World Knowledge (XXG), as images would surely have significant input in such a project--

807:." As long as we can assess the commercial use of the work and the likelihood of wikipedia displacing it, we don't actually need to know the specific owner to ensure fair use, do we? 123:

The author's work has been featured in the cover of magazine XXX, number YY, on 1997. The number included criticism over the TTT story, overall good, and an interview with the author.

4051:

They aren't adequate because they aren't clear. They hint at something which would have major implications for enforcement without clarifying it. Either we should make it clear that

2833:"high-resolution". Also, the images are used because they contain the printed information being cited, the source being brochures from the Church of Scientology. Image use criteria 2597:

sequence for each model. The manufacturer is not going to object to this use of their product photo. Even if they did object, fair use clearly applies. We should use the images.

3554:

about the idea behind "resolution" and have failed. He (or she) and other editors (I seemed to be the initiator that time too) had a similar difficulty around the word "publish".

3375:

If it's more than about 50% higher, 150ppi, it can be printed with moderate quality. At 300ppi, it can be printed at photo-realistic quality (at, of course, the original size).

2894: 2199:

language wikipedias. The majority of them don't except fair use anyway and if they do, their version of fair use will than be 'non-free images' here. (if that will be the name).

1130:

I believe in disregard of AGF I am being accused of going after conservative American media pundits' articles in some fashion, by insisting we adhere to our fair use policies. ·

524:

I agree that for people that are know for being hard to photograph, a fair use claim is valid. And for those who make public appearances, an unfree image wouldn't stand fuc#1. --

4561:

their opinions on that page are valuable contributors in many ways, writing articles, reverting vandalism, enforcing appropriate image policy, and yes, even maintaning portals.

2966:

still looks good on screen. I recommend choosing 72 or 96ppi depending on what it's an image of and what it's needed for--and smaller if it really doesn't compromise quality.

4835:

is some 1,800 words long, with no definitive answer to be found—just different interpretations of Knowledge (XXG) policy and arguments for and against those interpretations.

4842:

Is there a way to bring a Knowledge (XXG) legal representative to the table to resolve, once and for all, some of the issues that keep cropping up here over and over again?

4648: 244:

If there's gonna be pictures next to each episode, please make them representative of that episode, not some random screenshot that hasn't got much to do with the episode --

4316:

FUC#8 is unrelated to counterexample #8. A non-free image of a living person may pass FUC#8, but it would fail FUC#1, and that's why counterexample #8 says what it does. –

3691:

printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch: -->

827:

Summary: Picture of actress Jennifer Aniston. Source: copyright holder cannot be determined or specifically identified. Found on friendsfans.net. Licensing: {{promotional}}

750:"In cases where the copyright-holder cannot be determined because he or she has intentionally evaded recognition, the work can be used without naming the copyright-holder." 443:

Maybe we should create a new image deletion tag for these cases. It would place the image in a given category, to be later scanned by admins (think of a huge backlog...) --

4392:

on the English language Knowledge (XXG) mailing list seems relevant to your question. Does that answer the problem, or was there something in particular you had in mind?--

3634:

Honestly, is it necessary either way? I changed the once use of the word "resolution" in the template which is synonymous with "size" and that ought to resolve it, IMO. --

2538:

article is currently using 18 (!) fair use images, which seems a little much to me (especially since most if not all of them could be easily replaced with free images). --

2221:

Well, putting it very simply, Knowledge (XXG) is not a US project, but a world-wide one! Thus "fair use" is an easily-understood term that does what it says on the tin. --

121:

If especifically the magazine is mentioned in the author's page, then I see no problem. If you also include the magazine number and year, and explain what is inside (like

4375:

it a mistake? Can fair use allow people in the US do things with foreign material that those foreigners themselves are not legally allowed at their own country to do? --

4342:

images do. I agree with Renata, and I think I agree with Luke. I certainly agree with Luke's quote of Khaosworks, and with Khaosworks' comments in general. We should

4612:

Also, I am kind of disappointed about the low amount of feedback we have had. Ta bu shi da yu's proposal got over 60 opinions. I think we` failed at advertising it. --

3207:

Those brochures are free. They do not appear on any pricelist nor do they have prices on them. The cofs does indeed give them away. I did source the image, however. --

2676:

In a related note, there is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at

111:

therefore, that this article about an author would qualify as an article about the magazine. Does my interpretation seem reasonable? If not, I can remove the image.

1001:

The debate, perhaps including invited experts in world copyright, image recognition, etc could lead up to a call for a unified policy for all Wikipedians at the next

2756:

Sorry if this has come up before, but are there guidelines for what qualifies as "low" and "high" resolution for purposes of a fair use image. There's currently a

1613:

Is there a place where I could request such an image? The fact that I currently reside in a Francophone country doesn't really hlep me in finding a Britannica set.

4237:

for no practical benefit. A World Knowledge (XXG) would be such a reason in my view, and so would creating a level playing field for biographies of living people.

3069:

Farenheit451 thinks that his image is not high resolution because it is 72dpi when scaled to its original size (about 4 inches by 8 inches, give or take an inch);

1511:, specifically #1, which requires that the image be non-repeatable. Anyone could take a pic of the EB books, so there's no need to use their copyrighted image. – 1175:

and the editor refuses to let them go. They are repeatable shots of very recent available products and so are clearly not allowed but he refuses to believe me.

434:

where they get extra time being republished on Knowledge (XXG) while editors can determine their licensing -- we already know that these are "unfree images".

97: 89: 84: 4972:.) Clearly the use of the logo in the article is acceptable, as there's no possible free equivalent that adequately illustrates the logo. But it's the use 4412:..we have to balance various factors in thoughtful ways. Simply saying "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument. 2800:

and being linked does not qualify as being used. If it were me, I would just tag it as orphaned, and search for another way of referencing that section. --

1370:

Can someone adivse as to the accetpability of using screenshots of open source software taken from the developer's website? See links & discussion here

72: 67: 59: 4735:

I'd actually agree with Sherool that "alternative that adequately conveys the same information" is the most appopriate wording. And I like the emphasis on

4679:

In that case, I think 'alternative' is a slightly better wording that 'equivalent'- for instance, there is no free 'equivalent' of this image from imdb:(

2313: 1729: 1630: 1583: 1546: 1495: 1252:

One of the penalties of massive memory is we need a subtle knife to sort the wheat from the chaff to create a valued work of reference. *hug* from

2116:"Fair" also has connotations that we really want to avoid. "Public" does too -- maybe we should change "public domain" to "copyright-expired"? -- 4293:

Is it just me or does counterexample #8 directly contradict FUC #8? They both are making the same example with the complete opposite result. ––

3076:

Some other editors argue that the whole analysis is irrelevant because the image pretty clearly violates the fair use policy in other respects.

2796:. However, you are using images as a reference, linking to it instead of including it in the article. The seventh point of our criteria states 3933:

Current FUC#1 says "Also, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult."

1278: 504: 3856:

I would appreciate some sort of guideline. Right now, we have a number of users who are, and have been, uploading numerous sports logos from

799:

As an alternative for # 1, I would have no problem with identifying the copyright holder as "unknown individual publishing pseudonymously as

3959:

would require some serious guns both to enforce and to deal with the legion of people who will be upset by its arbitrariness and illogic. --

2310:

But a "non-commercial only" licensed image is not unlicensed. And a public domain image is unlicensed. So I think that would be confusing.

1374:. The uploader believes that since it is open-source, the screenshots are in the public domain, and I don't know if that's true. Thanks. -- 4273: 4906:

a copyright violation. It might seem like a nitpick but it is rather important to interpretting some aspects of the four-factors test. --

3348:

Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context.

2433:

would either redirect to the new one, or a bot would transition it to the new one over a couple days so we don't get a huge backlog. --

267:

that describe the history of the logos of the subject of the article. However, many users are uploading every single logo they can find

2943:

The 'in general" does not solve the issue at hand, which began as a discussion to define "low-resolution" and now has gone off-topic.--

2677: 2515:

I've been doing this slowly, with a little help from a few other people. If anybody else wants to help, I'd be a very happy Quadell. –

2189:

change without looking at the consequence and reasons for what we are doing, and having a clear and unambiguous policy to change to --

994:

images for the future. I understand the present policy to allow such images in the English Knowledge (XXG) was decided by a vote, (see

4348: 4178: 4170: 3502:. The question of resolution arises because the text of the promotional scan can not be easily read in a very low resolution image. 2130:

Yeah, good idea. "Non-free" works for me. This will do much good, but a whole lot of templates and categories will have to change. –

1942: 1322:

free content work, able to be reusable, and even sold, without changes — broadest collaboration to make the project achieve its aims

976: 47: 17: 3394: 3230: 3044: 2983: 2782:

Well, it depends on several factors. Resolution means both high dpi and high width/height. My thumb of rule is that, if you see the

4828:

interpretation by an individual who has experience in fair use law, which may not matter with regard to Knowledge (XXG)'s policy.

2642:

if a product is old enough and in limited production, etc. However, this isn't the case for the Bose Headphone Family article. --

2462:

is for photos that conceivably are replaceable but much less easily replaced. For example, if we had a recent fair use picture of

4771: 774:

the cases are few and far between and are best delt with on a case by case basis rather than by an alturation to the policy page.

567: 4666:

In the second paragraph under policy, I changed "alternate" to "equivalent" in order to be consistent with the first paragraph.

3292:

the degree of sharpness of a computer-generated image as measured by the number of dots per linear inch in a hard-copy printout

2969:

Which is great for printed materials. Screenshots of computer programs or websites, however, should be at original resolution.

464:

there is already a fairly trivial way to remove these images from wikipedia. remove them from articles and mark them as orphans.

4127:

for the case of celebrities image, (as this seems to be one of the most problematic issues). The counterexample 9 could read: "

2294: 1971: 1687: 1642: 554: 3335:

resolution, in particular the number of individual dots of ink a printer or toner can produce within a linear one-inch space.

2916:

It is published, but it is not a press release. The Fair Use doctrine specifies promotional material, not press releases. --

1946: 2733: 1566:

I considered that, but I doubt they would allowd me to take their entire set of the shelves, arrange it, and photograph it.

3936:

I think this is too wide-ranging a dictum to be just "thrown on" as an "also" at the end of it. This says, in effect, that

3416:

is PPI measurement used. You misunderstand completely. PPI or DPI, it doesn't matter. Those are both different terms which

2709: 2172:

This issue has become significant because of the changes being made to our policy by those keener to move us closer to the

4795: 4698:

I have to add though, that I don't think the difference is significant enough to argue (or God forbid, have a poll) over.

4468: 4198: 4161: 3812: 3714: 2446: 2417: 2388: 2325: 1764: 1274: 4461: 4191: 4119: 3148:

and provides a link to a higher resolution image stored here on Knowledge (XXG). Yet when I attempt to communicate with

503:

I admit it probably helps to be an admin with a reputation for doing ah "interesting" things. However asking for help at

3815:. I won't copy it here, even though it does seem to be properly part of this discussion, but it may be worth a look. — 3664:. I'm not making anything up. Note that when DPI is typically used in a sentence people say something to the extent of " 939:. There are various opinions about the lengths that must be undertaken before you may declare and work orphaned. This 4845:

Just to be clear, this is an inquiry regarding how to get definitive answers, not a solicitation for more opinions. As

2729: 2176:. I submit that rather than rush headlong into a name change to accommodate our changing ad hoc policies (a mixture of 2153: 878:

Dealing with these on a case-by-case basis seems to lead to their being deleted. And according to current policy, they

3861: 4042:

I'm with Carnildo on this. FUC guidelines are adequate for this matter, and, if anything are too leniently enforced.

3438:

O.K. Ned. Thanks for the informative links. Given what you state here, do you wish to offer a specific proposal?--

2848: 2757: 2018: 1975: 1827: 1646: 1006: 687: 38: 4832: 4224: 4220: 4207: 4110: 1468:, kept only the print set part of the picture, and uploaded it for a decription of Encyclopedia Britannica? Could 488: 223:

Uh, there is no actual number of fair use images per article that can realistically be applied to all situations.

4133:

The counter-example is important so that we have something to point people directly at, as poiting to item #1 of

4055:

image of a living human being cannot be considered "fair use" on Knowledge (XXG) or we should remove the line. --

3943:

I think this is both far beyond the intention of FUC#1 and something which is bound to cause unnecessary grief.

3692:" So, I did provide a correct definition, yet you continue to deny that. What is going on with you, Ned Scott?-- 3122: 2456: 2427: 2407: 2378: 757: 4685:). Fair use definitely dictates that we have to use the second picture, despite the fact that it is not exactly 342:

ok .. I'm going to work through that page. I'll let people know when I've done stuff so that it can get endorsed

3985: 3821: 3056:

least 300 ppi for quality printing, but 100 ppi or less is fine for web display. I appreciate these comments.--

2790: 2630: 2543: 1422: 1344: 1305: 841:

I see your point, but don't think that stating that a work had an unknown owner would be enough to satisfy the

392:

is living, for instance, it is not reasonable to expect someone to create a free image of him. Since there are

4440:

4574:

none of them have made any other comment of this page in the last month, which reeks of vote stacking to me.

2073: 2021:

sub-policy, as we currently have so much more problems with image's "fair use" than with any other media. --

1719: 1620: 1573: 1536: 1485: 1005:

conference in 2007. This would give very ample time for input and discussion from all sides so Wikipedians

4223:(07:11, 26 October 2006) and secondly to facilitate cooperation in producing a World Knowledge (XXG) - see 3216:

So anyway, if an image qualifies as fair use under all the other criteria, is a 72 or even 96ppi image OK?

1826:

Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with all the details of derivative work law yet. Even with

4680: 4480: 3595:

The "we" you state shall not include me, as you are proposing a perversion of the common english usage. --

589:

first person to find an effective way of searching images is going to be able to make a fair bit of money.

3003: 2539: 2474: 1724: 1625: 1578: 1541: 1490: 3389: 3225: 3039: 2978: 2535: 1903: 753: 3500:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material .... qualifies as fair use

2926: 2553:

Remove them all. Promo shots of current products which we could easily take ourselves are not allowed.

2266: 2031: 1954: 1389:

The screenshots won't be public domain, but will be the same license as the original software (usually

1002: 317: 4995: 4985: 4953: 4942: 4938: 4910: 4897: 4871: 4867: 4816: 4805: 4781: 4743: 4730: 4715: 4702: 4693: 4673: 4656: 4629: 4616: 4607: 4597: 4584: 4568: 4554: 4524: 4508: 4486: 4448: 4421: 4405: 4396: 4379: 4355: 4320: 4299: 4280: 4255: 4155: 4145: 4103: 4077: 4059: 4046: 4035: 4015: 4002: 3989: 3974: 3963: 3920: 3908: 3898: 3875: 3849: 3838: 3826: 3798: 3788: 3770: 3748: 3696: 3680: 3638: 3621: 3608: 3599: 3588: 3577: 3558: 3545: 3533: 3506: 3481: 3463: 3442: 3425: 3399: 3359: 3271: 3260: 3250: 3235: 3211: 3195: 3186: 3165: 3112: 3095: 3084: 3060: 3049: 3024: 2988: 2958: 2947: 2937: 2920: 2910: 2886: 2877: 2865: 2855: 2841: 2816: 2804: 2777: 2765: 2743: 2723: 2684: 2670: 2646: 2634: 2619: 2604: 2591: 2578: 2563: 2547: 2519: 2510: 2495: 2437: 2398: 2361: 2352: 2339: 2301: 2276: 2234: 2225: 2216: 2206: 2193: 2167: 2147: 2134: 2120: 2111: 2095: 2045: 2025: 1996: 1982: 1964: 1949:. As long as it's not called fair use it would help to stop a lot of confusion and irritation between 1928: 1910: 1882: 1866: 1850: 1834: 1819: 1810: 1774: 1735: 1704: 1668: 1656: 1636: 1608: 1599: 1589: 1561: 1552: 1524: 1515: 1501: 1451: 1437: 1401: 1383: 1360: 1347: 1330: 1308: 1285: 1256: 1235: 1218: 1205: 1185: 1156: 1139: 1125: 1107: 1096: 1085: 1047: 1030: 1020: 958: 925: 914: 893:. This is for images there there is evidence that the copyright-holder does not want to be identified. 864: 855: 836: 816: 778: 768: 761: 706: 695: 658: 638: 602: 593: 584: 574: 561: 548: 538: 528: 511: 498: 468: 447: 438: 421: 382: 320:

is called for to make it clear that we only want such an option to apply to 'unrepeatable' photographs

289: 278: 248: 231: 206: 185: 172: 160: 140: 129: 115: 3865: 3656: 3311: 2230:

No, it doesn't. I've found that the "fair" in "fair use" leads to all sorts of misunderstandings. --

1447: 1379: 951: 845: 674: 625: 4893:

I know this isn't a very satisfactory answer. But it's as "real" an answer as exists, I'm afraid. –

4210: 3981: 3816: 2906: 2902: 2705: 2701: 2626: 1521: 1472: 1341: 1302: 922: 3795: 3767: 3555: 3503: 3376: 3192: 3162: 1754: 507:

or on the talk page of users who are likely to help you might be a way to get around that problem.

3723: 3693: 3618: 3596: 3551: 3542: 3478: 3439: 3268: 3247: 3208: 3183: 3149: 3126: 3057: 3018: 2944: 2917: 2874: 2838: 2740: 2489: 2349: 2273: 2203: 2164: 2144: 2042: 2034:

for text, quotes and such. For those topics there is not so much (I think) difference with legal

1961: 1715: 1665: 1653: 1616: 1569: 1532: 1481: 1394: 1371: 402: 4476: 3760:

6. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal

3456: 339:

to say "look, we do not need a fair use photo of a minivan you can get by going down the street"

4726: 3872: 3727: 2500:

Nonetheless, the majority need to be changed over, although it will have to be a manual task.

2321: 1862: 1694: 1433: 1232: 896:

If I list an image with "unknown author, presumably a member of Al Quada", it could be tagged

739: 275: 227:

says to use a limited amount, which I would take as only one per episode, not per article. --

1318:. Is that perhaps right? The aim of making an excellent encyclopedia — the aim of creating a 745:, but this is incorrect, since the FBI mere republished the images and did not create them.) 4950: 4907: 4850: 4767: 4766:. I suspect that Arbitray Username is correct here, but the various arguments are discussed 4580: 4550: 4521: 4505: 4445: 4402: 4352: 4243: 4174: 4056: 4012: 3999: 3960: 3846: 3763: 3635: 3574: 3384: 3220: 3034: 2973: 2615: 2574: 2559: 2506: 2298: 2107: 1925: 1896: 1847: 1596: 1357: 1323: 1201: 1181: 692: 684: 670: 654: 634: 245: 4788: 4134: 2157: 2083: 2014: 1508: 1297: 727: 431: 414: 335:

AlisonW: "unrepeatable" is a good word, more accurate than "unique" which is currently used

224: 181:

So, a good solution might be to include 2-3 images as representative samples of the series.

4981: 4516: 4182: 4142: 3835: 2092: 2022: 1757: 1443: 1375: 1065: 945: 940: 833: 723: 525: 495: 444: 398: 264: 4497: 4493: 4385: 4124: 4031:

thousand dollars on a Blue-Ray player doesn't mean that nobody has ever purchased one. --

3522: 3413: 3278: 3152:

he (or she) accuses me of "false statements", of "accusations" and of "personal attack",

2584: 2010: 1520:

Yes, but why would anyone familiar with Knowledge (XXG) have a copy of Britannica? :-)

410: 832:

Of course, this doesn't mean I think the original intent of this proposal isn't good. --

4813: 4778: 4740: 4699: 4690: 4043: 3971: 3785: 3745: 3677: 3605: 3585: 3530: 3460: 3422: 3368:

That's why I've been using ppi all this time, even though I keep wanting to type dpi :P

3356: 3257: 3107: 3092: 2934: 2898: 2883: 2811: 2772: 2697: 2643: 1877: 1756:) It's my understanding that any photograph that focuses solely on box art would be a 1398: 1104: 477: 389: 286: 228: 2609:

No, we shouldn't and we won't. Fair Use is a last resort, not an excuse for laziness.

4613: 4604: 4376: 4032: 3905: 3895: 3343: 3326: 3010: 2998: 2955: 2862: 2801: 2737: 2481: 2469: 2463: 2434: 2395: 2346: 2270: 2231: 2200: 2161: 2141: 2117: 2039: 1979: 1958: 1945:. Would it make sense to make/rename a special non free image policy, something like 1831: 1807: 1797: 1771: 1662: 1650: 1061: 599: 581: 558: 203: 157: 126: 3662: 3287: 2261:

True, but the term "fair use" is unique to the United States. (assuming the article

1760:. If this is the case, then it would not be possible to produce a free version, so 1010: 990:

it might be an idea to begin fresh consideration of how Knowledge (XXG) is to treat

353:

it seems very easy for people with common sense to make reasonable distinctions here

4992: 4894: 4802: 4722: 4709: 4667: 4653: 4623: 4591: 4562: 4317: 4277: 4152: 4100: 3914: 3869: 3081: 2852: 2847:

I say we should (a) tone down the rhetoric, and (b) move all discussion on this to

2762: 2720: 2681: 2598: 2588: 2516: 2452:

is for photos that should be easily replaceable (celebrities, buildings, etc), but

2317: 2222: 2213: 2131: 1858: 1816: 1701: 1558: 1512: 1429: 1412: 1296:

legal criteria for that claim, free content is different, this page and especially

1282: 1215: 1148: 1131: 1122: 1093: 1077: 1073: 932: 911: 900: 852: 813: 765: 703: 545: 535: 418: 379: 272: 182: 169: 137: 112: 4515:

It is one of the more vague questions in relation to at what point something is a

3158:

and uses the phrase, "you must understand that this is not the place for a jihad"

2786:

message, it is too big, completely dismissing the dpi debate, and tagging it with

1751: 1069: 1026:

No fair use doesn't work because so many free images contian elements of fair use.

4540:

circumstances" that gives us no choice but to use the images for the sake of the

1231:

Thanks for preserving myself from myself. I was obviously a bloody psychopath. --

4969: 4931: 4860: 4576: 4546: 4414: 4389: 4074: 2823:

ZScout370 and ReyBrujo, you evidently don't know the definition of "resolution".

2611: 2570: 2555: 2502: 2358: 2336: 2103: 1993: 1781: 1197: 1177: 980: 650: 630: 435: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4977: 4683: 4418: 4393: 4252: 2732:, name of course can be changed as long as it's not fair use. It basically is 2667: 2190: 1327: 1315: 1291:

Disassociating between fair use claims (legal context) and free content policy

1253: 1044: 1017: 861: 800: 719: 673:, the image I created being Lagrange.PNG), is it considered fair use (and the 4839:

specific information is provided, we'll be having these discussions forever.

3455:

I propose we find a way to be clearer about this, but be mindful of avoiding

995: 984: 360:

Alison, is that written somewhere, or you just made it up? It sounds perfect

4846: 1605: 1039:

Thanks for the feedback. I don't yet know if The Foundation is working on a

1027: 965: 775: 590: 571: 508: 465: 4129:

An image of a living public person used to show how this person looks like.

3676:

of resolution used in printed documents, and not the definition itself. --

3653: 3306: 1172: 313:

i.e. "historically significant photo" is different from "promotional photo"

4478:

about a diagram of the spinal cord. Please help, if you can. thank you.--

4206:

Such clearly stated views are what lead inevitably to what is effectively

3142: 3139: 3136: 3133: 3130: 2691:

Rewording to clarify the difference between wikipedia's policy and the law

2357:

Right. I was being frivolous, but people do actually complain about it.

1978:-- something to make the whole thing sound as unattractive as possible. -- 1749: 4295: 4248: 2262: 2181: 2082:

Also, most "fair use rationales" fails to explain how the image's passes

2035: 1950: 1785: 991: 968: 804: 752:

I'm curious as to others' thoughts on this. Should all such images (e.g.

3495: 1857:

upcoming election there will no doubht be numerous public apperances. --

4652:

your support or oppose on the proposal that I have formulated. Thanks,

748:

I would recommend something like the following be added to the policy.

669:

If I notate an excerpt of a musical piece that is copyrighted (such as

1700:

on the talk page as well. I might see if I can get take a snapshot. –

3613:

Wrong, Ned Scott, I suggest you pull up your pants and stop exposing

679: 3834:

It is an example of an image that is a lot wider than it is tall. --

3156: 3153: 2736:

altered specifically for images. More comments on that are welcome.

2009:

Alternatively, we could completely fork the images related parts of

4902:

If it is "fair use" in the eyes of the court it is, by definition,

4812:

Thanks, I just wanted another outside opinion. I'll delete away. --

4475:

Is this checked with s/1 knowledgeable in law? This is relevant in

4099:

without discussions. I don't really think it's true. Any thoughts?

3813:

Template talk:Fair use reduce#Gross misunderstandings of Resolution

269:

without adding anything substantial to the text on those new images

4918:

Thanks for the straightforward answer about the current lack of a

4537:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals

3312:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67252&dict=CALD

3178:

I already went over this in my posting to your talk page Terryeo.

3105:

Do not re-upload this Farenheit under this name or any other name.

4026:

can't create a free-license photograph of something doesn't mean

4228: 2177: 2173: 2068:

you're nuts if you think they would sue Knowledge (XXG) for this

1800: 1796:) But can we please not tag box art as replaceable fair use. - 1788:, and he was probably right, they weren't of too much use. (See 1319: 1043:, but the groundwork will surely need very careful preparation-- 987: 788:

As a first choice, I would go broader in some respects and say:

494:(whatever). I don't know... surely an still undeveloped idea. -- 3940:

fair use photograph of a living person could possibly be used.

2771:

Personally, I would scale the image down by either 1/3 or 1/2.

1428:

tag might be apropriate or I guess a combination of the two. --

349:

but notice, it meets both what Alison said and what Smoddy said

301:

discussion and all non-relevant conversation has been removed.

4458: 4188: 4116: 3857: 3525:

and templates are using the correct definition of resolution,

2060:

it's ok to use this image because we're educational/non-profit

1390: 1068:, and noted that free images exist for the lead. For example, 764:) be deleted? Or should there be an explicit policy change? – 260: 25: 4011:

I complete agree with Fastfission on pretty much all counts.

4689:(and maybe even slightly inferior) to the copyrighted photo 4496:

has not been checked with anyone knowledgeable in the law.

4492:

I would guess that this, along with most everything else in

2370:

Similar templates: fair use replace and replaceable fair use

2086:, but instead, they explain how the image use isn't illegal. 2058:

I support this idea. It's too usual to hear arguments like "

4721:

even looking at the camera, it's not equivent!" etc etc. --

3129:

has placed somewhat similar images which are mostly text.

1464:

Would it qualify under fair use if I took the picture from

4169:

This has lead to much discussion, particularly earlier in

4141:") is usually not enough for a large number of editors. -- 3296:

the number of pixels across and down on a display screen.

1604:

We have students. They should be able to get pics of EBs.

1117:

I have no idea what you are trying to say when you write

1056:

Need clarification, two articles (same issue essentially)

648:. Hopefully this now more accurately reflects this page. 259:

There currently exists certain sections in articles like

4801:

instead of speedy-delete, but the effect is the same. –

3659: 3316: 2265:

is correct) Plus it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

4764:

17 clips that have been mass tagged for speedy deletion

4763: 4123:

So, I suggest the addition of a new counter-exmaple to

4096: 3832: 3571:

Knowledge (XXG):Fair use/Definition of "low resolution"

3159: 1793: 1789: 1192: 645: 4649:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists

4139:

No free equivalent is available or could be created...

2140:

Ouch, yes. Oh well..give the bots something to do. :)

3241:

Request for proposals on Threshold of High Resolution

2335:

Incidentally, this would solve the acronym concern.

1408:

Not public domain, but that application is aparently

4276:. You know, something solid, something policy-like. 2583:

I tagged them all as copyvios and added them all to

2269:

is much more stricter than the legal term fair use.

1970:

Sounds good to me. I've always favored a name like

1770:

would not apply in these cases, is this correct? --

553:

The correct way to ask for a free replacement is at

4968:in an infobox. (For a very prominent example, see 3380:In metric units, 72ppi ≈ 28px/cm; 96ppi ≈ 38px/cm. 2716: 136:

Thanks! I already put in a caption to that effect.

4708:fair use photo showing more detail of the scene. 3860:that sometimes exceed 500 pixels in width such as 3342:Ironically, the article also has a section titled 2798:The material must be used in at least one article. 713:Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure 409:to the article." Those photos should be listed on 316:in which case I believe a rewrite to the terms of 3888:Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. 3882:Excellent coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. 3288:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolution 2895:wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources 2423:is relatively new. I was assuming at some point 2064:see this equivalent case than happened in a court 2678:Knowledge (XXG):Possibly unfree images#October 7 2156:(had to pick a name) and reworded (more copied) 1661:The one on Commons is not really active though. 889:for images where the copyright-holder is merely 598:Well, a summary would help, don't you think? -- 3144:. Each image offers the Knowledge (XXG) user, 931:This question is basically about how to handle 4251:announced in passing a few weeks ago? Thanks-- 4173:and just recently (23:10, 26 October 2006) by 3831:Could you comment on this fair use rationale? 1009:well prepared and hopefully able to arrive at 803:," or "unknown author, presumably a member of 1529:Considering a full print set costs $ 1500... 8: 2070:" and (the one that I have heard the most) " 4410:This, to my mind, is the nub of the issue:- 3894:in the external links sections. Thanks. -- 1507:Legally it might, but it would violate our 568:Category:Fair use image replacement request 202:: the series logo/title screen/whatever. -- 4177:directly above. The earlier discussion is 2752:Guidelines for "low" and "high" resolution 534:justification for the 'fair use' claim. -- 4455:diagrams based on copyrighted material... 4417:That seems to sum it up exactly for me.-- 3550:I too have attempted to communicate with 3065:If I understand the dicussion correctly, 2295:Knowledge (XXG):Unlicensed content policy 1972:Knowledge (XXG):Restricted-license images 1119:" this policy is being used as an excuse" 722:, or common photos of terrorists such as 505:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Fair use 4991:It doesn't seem like a problem to me. – 4500:seems to be purposefully and explicitly 3784:seen or understood by an individual? -- 3307:http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/resolution 2466:, this could be tagged with the latter. 430:Except that they shouldn't be listed at 331:it is the basis I've looked at images on 4853:, "All we want are the facts, ma'am." 4762:Could someone comment on the following 4682:) but we do have a free 'alternative' ( 4274:Knowledge (XXG):Images of living people 3892:Coverage of fair use law by Stanford U. 3498:which mentions resolution. It states, 1947:Knowledge (XXG):Non free content images 4964:I'm wondering about the use of a logo 4831:For example, the discussion regarding 4109:Hi Renata it was added as a result of 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4349:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Publicity photos 255:Fair use galleries in "Logo" sections 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content 7: 3811:There is some related discussion at 3331:Dots per inch (DPI) is a measure of 2038:. And the new page only for images. 1801: 4347:people who look at this page or at 4213:needed to sustain the policy creep. 3317:http://en.wiktionary.org/resolution 2394:? Which one should we be using? -- 2084:Knowledge (XXG)'s fair use criteria 1372:User_talk:Ocarbone#Image_copyrights 1273:There's a new tag in town: {{subst: 324:Alison: oooooh, I like that wording 3713:To reply to something you said on 3521:Fahrenheit451: you misunderstand, 2690: 1784:also orphaned the images from the 1748:Can box art fail FUC#1? (example: 1688:Knowledge (XXG):Requested pictures 1643:Knowledge (XXG):Requested pictures 1366:Screenshot of open-source software 1191:Furthermore we may have to review 825:I can see this being abused like " 555:Knowledge (XXG):Requested pictures 24: 4264:Don't get me wrong, I am all for 3191:I don't have a dispute with you. 2734:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use criteria 882:be deleted. Is that what we want? 265:New York Giants#Logo and uniforms 3146:Download high-resolution version 2784:Download high-resolution version 2534:Just wanted to mention that the 2530:Excessive use of fair use images 2030:That was indeed the idea. Leave 1830:, it still seems a bit murky. -- 1828:commons:Commons:Derivative works 796:some time after the attribution. 151:Fair use images on episode lists 29: 4171:Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos 3541:rewrite. It is unacceptable.-- 2873:Why not? That makes no sense.-- 2730:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free images 2717:#Renaming Fair use image policy 2661:Stamps & Currency: fair use 2154:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free images 1712:Thanks, I've posted a request. 1393:). Look at the screenshots for 1277:}}. Details and discussion are 1149: 1132: 1078: 953: 946: 726:. These photos fill all of our 125:), it would be much better. -- 4939: 4932: 4928: 4868: 4861: 4857: 4758:Speedy Deletable Clips? URGENT 4227:- by adhering strictly to the 4156:15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 4146:14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 2849:Image_talk:Oec_febc_promo1.png 2374:A quick question: why we have 2345:What concern? The FU acronym? 1941:With regard to the discussion 1937:Renaming Fair use image policy 1: 4185:ended his remarks like this:- 3715:Template talk:Fair use reduce 3496:Promotional Copypright notice 2927:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use#Text 2019:Knowledge (XXG):Unfree images 1976:Knowledge (XXG):Unfree images 1904: 1897: 1802: 1557:Libraries are your friend. – 688: 580:better way of doing that. -- 4996:21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 4986:20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 4954:20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4943:16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4911:20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4898:14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4872:11:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4817:09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4806:09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4782:08:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 4744:20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 4731:20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 4716:19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 4703:22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4694:22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4674:14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4657:02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4630:23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4617:17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4608:17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4598:17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4585:16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4569:15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4555:15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4525:22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4509:18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4487:14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4449:13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4422:17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4406:13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4397:08:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4380:03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4356:18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4321:06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4300:05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4281:22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4256:07:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4104:00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 4078:04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 4060:22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4047:21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4036:21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4016:18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 4003:22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 3990:17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 3975:23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3964:23:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3921:16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3909:01:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3899:20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 3876:00:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3850:19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 3839:21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3827:06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3799:00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 3789:08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3771:06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3749:04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3697:04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3681:03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3639:19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 3622:21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 3609:06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3600:05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3589:23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3578:22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3559:17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3546:04:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC) 3534:23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3507:18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3482:18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3464:07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3443:05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3426:04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3400:04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3360:04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3272:03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3261:03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3251:03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3236:03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3212:03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3196:15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3187:04:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3180:The link wording is in ERROR 3166:03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3113:01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3096:01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3085:01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3061:00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) 3050:20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 3025:20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2989:19:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2959:19:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2948:16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2938:13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2921:13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2911:13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2887:12:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2878:13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2866:12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2856:12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2842:11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2817:05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2805:05:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2778:05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2766:04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 2744:14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2724:14:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2710:14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2685:15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2671:12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2647:02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 2635:01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 2620:03:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 2605:17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 2592:13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 2579:13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 2564:08:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 2548:08:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 2520:12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 2511:11:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 2496:23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 2438:23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 2399:23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 2362:22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2353:19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2340:18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2302:18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2277:18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2235:18:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2226:17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2217:16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2207:12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2194:07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 2168:22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2148:21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2135:20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2121:21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2112:19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2096:18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2046:21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 2026:18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1997:18:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1983:18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1965:16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1929:12:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 1911:07:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1883:06:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1867:06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1851:04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1835:21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1820:20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1811:17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1775:17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1736:10:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 1705:20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1669:20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1657:20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1637:20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1609:17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1600:00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1590:18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1562:18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1553:15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 1525:22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1516:22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1502:21:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1478:be used? Thanks in advance. 1452:18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1438:18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1418:licensed, alternatively the 1402:18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1384:16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC) 1361:12:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 1348:00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1331:10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 1309:20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 1286:20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1257:13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 1236:12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 1219:15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1206:09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1186:09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1171:About 25 have been added to 1157:14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1140:14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1126:14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1108:12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1097:08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1086:07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 1048:13:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 1031:01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC) 1021:07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 959:17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 926:21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 915:18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 906:. Wouldn't that be accurate? 865:18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 856:18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 837:17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 817:17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 779:17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 769:17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 659:14:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 639:22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 4960:Logos as names in infoboxes 4662:Word choice for consistency 3858:http://www.sportslogos.net/ 1060:I was edited two articles, 785:My usual slew of comments: 707:23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 696:19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 603:19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 594:19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 585:17:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 575:12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 562:02:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 549:17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 539:16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 529:23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 512:21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 499:20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 469:19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 448:23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 439:22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 422:22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 383:21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 290:05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 279:05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 249:03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 232:05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 207:21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 186:20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 173:20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 161:19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 141:17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 130:17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 116:16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 5012: 4922:answer. Since there is no 4833:DVD covers on actors pages 4603:as character profiles. -- 4432:"Fair use" can be invoked 3344:Misuses of DPI measurement 1167:Promotional product photos 296:The first three paragraphs 271:. Should this be allowed? 106:fair use of magazine cover 3355:So there you have it. -- 3123:Scientology_as_a_business 2072:It seems you suffer from 1690:, and it may help to put 1686:You can add a request to 665:Fair use for sheet music? 624:We really need to update 4644:Fair use images in lists 3913:Good catch - thank you. 3494:Specifically, it is the 2267:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use 2032:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use 1955:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use 1780:I've removed the tags. 1193:all of his contributions 318:Knowledge (XXG):Fair_Use 3080:Is that fair? Thanks, 1013:during the Conference. 363:I'm just writing it now 4268:(and not neccessarily 2186:World Knowledge (XXG). 1895:Thank you so much!! -- 977:This page is dangerous 367:Alison, it is great ;) 4886:no "real" answer yet. 4502:much more restrictive 4125:WP:FU#Counterexamples 2536:Bose Headphone Family 2316:comment was added by 1041:World Knowledge (XXG) 42:of past discussions. 4796:Replaceable fair use 4388:in August 2005 from 4249:new Gnu Wiki License 2447:replaceable fair use 2418:replaceable fair use 2389:replaceable fair use 1765:replaceable fair use 1753:, from the boxes at 1275:Replaceable fair use 1269:Replaceable fair use 874:A few comments. 675:Template:Sheet music 626:Template:Promotional 4823:Definitive answers? 4095:As far as I see it 3277:A few things. One, 2837:provide for this.-- 644:Being bold, I have 489:non-free-replacable 4535:The discussion at 3724:Display resolution 3668:<something: --> 3552:User:Fahrenheit451 3457:instructions creep 3150:User:Fahrenheit451 3127:User:Fahrenheit451 2715:Yes. See above at 2413:is the older one, 2074:Copyright Paranoia 1395:Battle for Wesnoth 403:Donald Eugene Webb 307:<dannyisme: --> 4473: 4472: 4442:outside of the US 4203: 4202: 4166: 4165: 4091:Counterexample #8 3825: 3728:Screen resolution 3669: 3111: 3022: 2815: 2776: 2493: 2442:The idea is that 2329: 1881: 1744:FUC#1 and box art 1645:on wikipedia and 1509:fair use criteria 956: 728:fair use criteria 378:image instead. -- 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5003: 4940: 4936: 4930: 4869: 4865: 4859: 4800: 4794: 4729: 4583: 4553: 4485: 4483: 4459: 4231:in all articles. 4189: 4175:User:Fastfission 4117: 3929:FUC#1 and people 3819: 3726:(which is where 3667: 3666:a resolution of 3398: 3397: 3392: 3387: 3234: 3233: 3228: 3223: 3110: 3048: 3047: 3042: 3037: 3023: 3016: 3013: 3008: 3001: 2987: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2814: 2795: 2789: 2775: 2758:simmering debate 2618: 2577: 2562: 2509: 2494: 2487: 2484: 2479: 2472: 2461: 2457:fair use replace 2455: 2451: 2445: 2432: 2428:Fair use replace 2426: 2422: 2416: 2412: 2408:Fair use replace 2406: 2393: 2387: 2383: 2379:fair use replace 2377: 2311: 2110: 1908: 1901: 1880: 1865: 1805: 1804: 1769: 1763: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1699: 1693: 1647:Picture requests 1633: 1628: 1623: 1586: 1581: 1576: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1498: 1493: 1488: 1477: 1471: 1436: 1427: 1421: 1417: 1411: 1204: 1184: 1153: 1136: 1082: 955: 952: 948: 905: 899: 850: 844: 744: 738: 690: 671:La Grange (song) 657: 637: 493: 487: 482: 476: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5011: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4984: 4962: 4825: 4798: 4792: 4760: 4725: 4664: 4646: 4575: 4545: 4533: 4517:derivative work 4504:than the law. 4481: 4479: 4457: 4372: 4370:Other Countries 4183:User:khaosworks 4093: 4022:Simply becuase 3931: 3884: 3393: 3388: 3383: 3381: 3243: 3229: 3224: 3219: 3217: 3043: 3038: 3033: 3031: 3011: 3004: 2999: 2996: 2982: 2977: 2972: 2970: 2830: 2793: 2791:fair use reduce 2787: 2754: 2728:Yep, I created 2693: 2663: 2610: 2569: 2554: 2532: 2501: 2482: 2475: 2470: 2467: 2459: 2453: 2449: 2443: 2430: 2424: 2420: 2414: 2410: 2404: 2391: 2385: 2381: 2375: 2372: 2312:—The preceding 2102: 1939: 1861: 1843: 1767: 1761: 1758:derivative work 1746: 1730: 1725: 1720: 1697: 1691: 1631: 1626: 1621: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1547: 1542: 1537: 1496: 1491: 1486: 1475: 1469: 1462: 1432: 1425: 1423:free screenshot 1419: 1415: 1409: 1368: 1293: 1271: 1196: 1176: 1169: 1066:Michelle Malkin 1058: 973: 903: 897: 851:requirements. 848: 842: 742: 736: 724:Osama bin Laden 715: 667: 649: 629: 491: 485: 480: 474: 399:Osama bin Ladin 366:<jwales: --> 359:<jwales: --> 352:<jwales: --> 348:<jwales: --> 338:<jwales: --> 334:<bainer: --> 327:<jwales: --> 323:<jwales: --> 312:<jwales: --> 298: 257: 153: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5009: 5007: 4999: 4998: 4980: 4961: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4891: 4887: 4879: 4824: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4809: 4808: 4759: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4663: 4660: 4645: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4610: 4532: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4512: 4511: 4471: 4470: 4467: 4463: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4371: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4259: 4258: 4239: 4238: 4233: 4232: 4215: 4214: 4201: 4200: 4197: 4193: 4187: 4186: 4164: 4163: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4121: 4115: 4114: 4092: 4089: 4087: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4039: 4038: 4019: 4018: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 3982:Damian Yerrick 3978: 3977: 3930: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3886:Please change 3883: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3853: 3852: 3817:Ilmari Karonen 3810: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3752: 3751: 3742: 3737: 3736: 3719: 3718: 3710: 3709: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3611: 3592: 3591: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3378: 3373: 3369: 3363: 3362: 3352: 3351: 3339: 3338: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3300: 3299: 3284: 3283: 3264: 3263: 3242: 3239: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3116: 3115: 3108:User:Zscout370 3099: 3098: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3053: 3052: 2992: 2991: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2941: 2940: 2914: 2913: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2812:User:Zscout370 2773:User:Zscout370 2753: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2692: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2662: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2627:Damian Yerrick 2594: 2566: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2498: 2371: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2305: 2304: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2209: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2088: 2087: 2079: 2078: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2017:into this new 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1986: 1985: 1938: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1878:User:Zscout370 1870: 1869: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1659: 1602: 1527: 1522:Dragons flight 1461: 1460:Britannica Set 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1405: 1404: 1367: 1364: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1342:zen apprentice 1334: 1333: 1303:zen apprentice 1292: 1289: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1209: 1208: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1100: 1099: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1034: 1033: 975:In light of " 972: 964:International 962: 929: 928: 923:Dragons flight 908: 907: 894: 883: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 858: 830: 820: 819: 810: 809: 808: 797: 793: 782: 781: 714: 711: 710: 709: 666: 663: 662: 661: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 425: 424: 406: 390:Thomas Pynchon 371: 370: 369: 368: 364: 361: 357: 354: 350: 346: 343: 340: 336: 332: 329: 328:"unrepeatable" 325: 321: 314: 310: 297: 294: 293: 292: 256: 253: 252: 251: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 198:I'd recommend 191: 190: 189: 188: 176: 175: 152: 149: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5008: 4997: 4994: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4959: 4955: 4952: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4941: 4937: 4935: 4925: 4921: 4912: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4885: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4870: 4866: 4864: 4854: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4840: 4836: 4834: 4829: 4822: 4818: 4815: 4811: 4810: 4807: 4804: 4797: 4790: 4787:According to 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4780: 4775: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4757: 4745: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4701: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4681: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4671: 4670: 4661: 4659: 4658: 4655: 4650: 4643: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4615: 4611: 4609: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4595: 4594: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4566: 4565: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4543: 4538: 4530: 4526: 4523: 4518: 4514: 4513: 4510: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4484: 4477: 4464: 4460: 4454: 4450: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4430: 4423: 4420: 4416: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4386:This message 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4378: 4369: 4357: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4322: 4319: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4301: 4298: 4297: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4282: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4257: 4254: 4250: 4245: 4241: 4240: 4235: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4217: 4216: 4212: 4209: 4205: 4204: 4194: 4190: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4157: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4112: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4102: 4098: 4090: 4088: 4079: 4076: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4061: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4037: 4034: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4020: 4017: 4014: 4010: 4009: 4004: 4001: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3976: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3962: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3934: 3928: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3907: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3881: 3877: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3851: 3848: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3823: 3818: 3814: 3800: 3797: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3787: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3772: 3769: 3764: 3761: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730:redirects): " 3729: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3711: 3706: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3695: 3694:Fahrenheit451 3682: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3640: 3637: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3623: 3620: 3619:Fahrenheit451 3616: 3612: 3610: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3598: 3597:Fahrenheit451 3594: 3593: 3590: 3587: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3576: 3572: 3560: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3544: 3543:Fahrenheit451 3539: 3535: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3508: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3483: 3480: 3479:Fahrenheit451 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3444: 3441: 3440:Fahrenheit451 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3427: 3424: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3401: 3396: 3391: 3386: 3379: 3377: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3334: 3328: 3327:Dots per inch 3324: 3323: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3295: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3269:Fahrenheit451 3262: 3259: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3248:Fahrenheit451 3246:resolution.-- 3240: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3227: 3222: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3209:Fahrenheit451 3197: 3194: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3185: 3184:Fahrenheit451 3181: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3167: 3164: 3160: 3157: 3154: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3114: 3109: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3094: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3083: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3058:Fahrenheit451 3051: 3046: 3041: 3036: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3020: 3015: 3014: 3009: 3007: 3002: 2990: 2985: 2980: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2945:Fahrenheit451 2939: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2918:Fahrenheit451 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2880: 2879: 2876: 2875:Fahrenheit451 2867: 2864: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2839:Fahrenheit451 2836: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2792: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2774: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2759: 2751: 2745: 2742: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2669: 2660: 2648: 2645: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2595: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2529: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2499: 2497: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2480: 2478: 2473: 2465: 2464:J.D. Salinger 2458: 2448: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2429: 2419: 2409: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2397: 2390: 2380: 2369: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2202: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2192: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1998: 1995: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1936: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1912: 1909: 1907: 1902: 1900: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1849: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1766: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1743: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1696: 1689: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1635: 1634: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1601: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1534: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1494: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1474: 1467: 1459: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1424: 1414: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1397:for example. 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1365: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1324:exponentially 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1299: 1290: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1268: 1258: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1166: 1158: 1154: 1152: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1098: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1081: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062:Rush Limbaugh 1055: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1012: 1008: 1004: 999: 997: 996:meta:Fair use 993: 989: 986: 982: 978: 970: 967: 963: 961: 960: 957: 949: 942: 938: 934: 927: 924: 919: 918: 917: 916: 913: 902: 895: 892: 888: 884: 881: 877: 876: 875: 866: 863: 859: 857: 854: 847: 840: 839: 838: 835: 831: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 815: 811: 806: 802: 798: 794: 792: 787: 786: 784: 783: 780: 777: 773: 772: 771: 770: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 746: 741: 732: 729: 725: 721: 712: 708: 705: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 691: 686: 681: 676: 672: 664: 660: 656: 652: 647: 643: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 627: 604: 601: 597: 596: 595: 592: 588: 587: 586: 583: 578: 577: 576: 573: 569: 565: 564: 563: 560: 556: 552: 551: 550: 547: 542: 541: 540: 537: 532: 531: 530: 527: 523: 513: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 497: 490: 479: 472: 471: 470: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 449: 446: 442: 441: 440: 437: 433: 429: 428: 427: 426: 423: 420: 416: 412: 407: 404: 400: 395: 391: 387: 386: 385: 384: 381: 377: 365: 362: 358: 355: 351: 347: 344: 341: 337: 333: 330: 326: 322: 319: 315: 311: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 295: 291: 288: 283: 282: 281: 280: 277: 274: 270: 266: 262: 254: 250: 247: 243: 242: 233: 230: 226: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 208: 205: 201: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 187: 184: 180: 179: 178: 177: 174: 171: 166: 165: 164: 162: 159: 150: 142: 139: 135: 134: 133: 132: 131: 128: 124: 120: 119: 118: 117: 114: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4973: 4965: 4963: 4933: 4923: 4919: 4917: 4903: 4883: 4862: 4855: 4844: 4841: 4837: 4830: 4826: 4776: 4761: 4736: 4710: 4686: 4668: 4665: 4647: 4624: 4592: 4563: 4541: 4534: 4501: 4474: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4411: 4373: 4343: 4294: 4269: 4265: 4138: 4132: 4128: 4111:this request 4094: 4086: 4052: 4027: 4023: 3979: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3942: 3937: 3935: 3932: 3915: 3891: 3887: 3885: 3830: 3809: 3759: 3731: 3704: 3689: 3673: 3672:". DPI is a 3665: 3614: 3567: 3526: 3499: 3417: 3412:No where in 3347: 3332: 3330: 3325:The article 3293: 3291: 3265: 3244: 3215: 3206: 3179: 3145: 3104: 3079: 3064: 3054: 3005: 2997: 2993: 2942: 2930: 2915: 2881: 2872: 2834: 2831: 2797: 2783: 2755: 2694: 2664: 2639: 2599: 2533: 2476: 2468: 2373: 2334: 2185: 2129: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 1940: 1905: 1898: 1844: 1815:I concur. – 1747: 1714: 1713: 1685: 1649:on Commons. 1615: 1614: 1568: 1567: 1531: 1530: 1480: 1479: 1463: 1369: 1354: 1294: 1272: 1233:Marc Lacoste 1170: 1150: 1133: 1118: 1101: 1079: 1059: 1040: 1015: 1000: 974: 936: 933:orphan works 930: 909: 890: 886: 879: 873: 826: 789: 749: 747: 733: 716: 668: 623: 417:. Agreed? – 393: 375: 372: 299: 268: 258: 199: 154: 122: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4970:The Beatles 4951:Fastfission 4908:Fastfission 4737:information 4522:Fastfission 4446:Fastfission 4403:Fastfission 4390:Jimmy Wales 4244:Fastfission 4242:In my view 4057:Fastfission 4000:Fastfission 3961:Fastfission 3904:Thanks. -- 3847:Fastfission 3674:measurement 3636:Fastfission 3575:Fastfission 3527:you are not 2299:Fastfission 1848:Magicartpro 1841:Politicians 1782:User:Ed g2s 1597:Fastfission 846:promotional 246:WikiSlasher 36:This is an 4687:equivalent 4143:Abu Badali 3836:GunnarRene 2293:How about 2212:policy? – 2152:I created 2093:Abu Badali 2023:Abu Badali 1473:Book cover 1444:ZimZalaBim 1442:Thanks. -- 1376:ZimZalaBim 971:and images 947:Birgitte§β 910:Thanks, – 834:Abu Badali 801:John Titor 720:John Titor 526:Abu Badali 496:Abu Badali 445:Abu Badali 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 12 85:Archive 11 79:Archive 10 4974:as a name 4966:as a name 4847:Jack Webb 4814:Robdurbar 4779:Robdurbar 4741:Borisblue 4700:Borisblue 4691:Borisblue 4434:in the US 4097:was added 4044:Borisblue 3972:Ned Scott 3786:Ned Scott 3746:Ned Scott 3678:Ned Scott 3606:Ned Scott 3586:Ned Scott 3531:Ned Scott 3461:Ned Scott 3423:Ned Scott 3357:Ned Scott 3258:Ned Scott 3093:Ned Scott 2935:Ned Scott 2929:states: " 2899:Night Gyr 2884:Ned Scott 2698:Night Gyr 2644:Ned Scott 1641:There is 1399:Borisblue 1105:Dual Freq 1011:consensus 1003:Wikimania 985:draft new 966:WIKIPEDIA 944:holder?-- 287:Ned Scott 261:CBS#Logos 229:Ned Scott 73:Archive 9 68:Archive 8 60:Archive 5 4878:policy.) 4849:said on 4614:ReyBrujo 4605:ReyBrujo 4181:, where 4151:Done. -- 4033:Carnildo 3906:ReyBrujo 3896:ReyBrujo 3866:this one 3862:this one 3615:yourself 3477:image.-- 3395:CONTRIBS 3372:quality. 3333:printing 3231:CONTRIBS 3045:CONTRIBS 2984:CONTRIBS 2956:Carnildo 2863:ReyBrujo 2802:ReyBrujo 2738:Garion96 2540:Fritz S. 2435:Interiot 2396:ReyBrujo 2347:Garion96 2326:contribs 2314:unsigned 2271:Garion96 2263:Fair use 2232:Carnildo 2201:Garion96 2182:fair use 2162:Garion96 2142:Garion96 2118:Carnildo 2040:Garion96 2036:fair use 1980:Carnildo 1959:Garion96 1951:Fair use 1899:Magicart 1832:Interiot 1786:Xbox 360 1772:Interiot 1695:reqphoto 1663:Garion96 1651:Garion96 1326:faster-- 1214:Done. – 992:fair use 983:and the 969:fair use 885:This is 812:Thanks, 805:Al Quada 791:holders. 740:PD-USGov 693:lomobile 600:ReyBrujo 582:ReyBrujo 559:ReyBrujo 204:Carnildo 158:Yugigx60 127:ReyBrujo 4993:Quadell 4895:Quadell 4856:Thanks. 4851:Dragnet 4803:Quadell 4723:Sherool 4711:Johntex 4669:Johntex 4625:Johntex 4593:Johntex 4564:Johntex 4542:article 4531:Portals 4318:Quadell 4153:AlisonW 3916:Johntex 3870:Zzyzx11 3796:Terryeo 3768:Terryeo 3741:height. 3733:arrays. 3705:measure 3556:Terryeo 3504:Terryeo 3385:HKMarks 3329:says: " 3290:says: " 3221:HKMarks 3193:Terryeo 3163:Terryeo 3082:TheronJ 3073:square) 3035:HKMarks 2974:HKMarks 2853:Quadell 2763:TheronJ 2721:Quadell 2682:Quadell 2600:Johntex 2589:Quadell 2517:Quadell 2318:Quadell 2223:AlisonW 2214:Quadell 2160:on it. 2132:Quadell 2062:", or " 1859:Sherool 1817:Quadell 1716:Nautica 1702:Quadell 1617:Nautica 1570:Nautica 1559:Quadell 1533:Nautica 1513:Quadell 1482:Nautica 1430:Sherool 1283:Quadell 1216:Quadell 1123:AlisonW 1094:AlisonW 921:this. 912:Quadell 891:unknown 853:TheronJ 814:TheronJ 766:Quadell 704:AlisonW 646:done so 546:Quadell 536:AlisonW 419:Quadell 394:so many 380:AlisonW 273:Zzyzx11 183:PaulLev 170:Quadell 138:PaulLev 113:PaulLev 39:archive 4934:Chidom 4863:Chidom 4789:WP:FUC 4727:(talk) 4654:Renata 4577:ed g2s 4547:ed g2s 4506:john k 4482:ExpImp 4353:john k 4278:Renata 4270:pretty 4135:WP:FUC 4101:Renata 4075:JROBBO 4028:nobody 4013:john k 3873:(Talk) 3303:Also: 2835:should 2741:(talk) 2612:ed g2s 2571:ed g2s 2556:ed g2s 2503:ed g2s 2359:Jkelly 2350:(talk) 2337:Jkelly 2274:(talk) 2204:(talk) 2165:(talk) 2158:WP:FUC 2145:(talk) 2104:ed g2s 2066:" or " 2043:(talk) 2015:WP:FUC 1994:Jkelly 1962:(talk) 1926:john k 1863:(talk) 1798:Hahnch 1790:before 1666:(talk) 1654:(talk) 1434:(talk) 1358:john k 1316:hassle 1298:WP:FUC 1198:ed g2s 1178:ed g2s 1173:Sony α 1007:muster 941:report 880:should 760:, and 680:ZZ Top 651:ed g2s 631:ed g2s 436:Jkelly 432:WP:PUI 415:WP:PUI 276:(Talk) 225:WP:FUC 4978:Xtifr 4498:WP:FU 4494:WP:FU 4377:Perón 3722:From 3708:here. 3529:. -- 3523:WP:FU 3414:WP:FU 3279:WP:FU 3000:howch 2933:" -- 2668:Ccmhg 2640:Maybe 2585:WP:CP 2471:howch 2011:WP:FU 1794:after 988:GDFLs 981:Jimbo 979:" by 862:Robth 478:orfud 411:WP:CV 309:used. 16:< 4982:tälk 4924:real 4920:real 4772:here 4770:and 4768:here 4581:talk 4551:talk 4436:for 4419:luke 4394:luke 4266:free 4253:luke 4229:GFDL 4225:here 4221:here 4211:fork 4208:this 4179:here 3864:and 3822:talk 3390:TALK 3226:TALK 3125:, a 3040:TALK 3019:chat 2979:TALK 2903:talk 2851:. – 2719:. – 2702:talk 2680:. – 2616:talk 2587:. – 2575:talk 2560:talk 2544:Talk 2507:talk 2490:chat 2384:and 2322:talk 2191:luke 2180:and 2178:GFDL 2174:GFDL 2108:talk 2013:and 1953:and 1943:here 1792:and 1721:Shad 1622:Shad 1606:Geni 1575:Shad 1538:Shad 1487:Shad 1466:here 1448:talk 1380:talk 1328:luke 1320:GFDL 1281:. – 1279:here 1254:luke 1202:talk 1182:talk 1074:this 1072:and 1070:this 1064:and 1045:luke 1028:Geni 1018:luke 954:Talk 776:Geni 762:this 758:this 754:this 655:talk 635:talk 591:Geni 572:Geni 566:try 509:Geni 466:Geni 376:free 263:and 4904:not 4438:any 4344:not 4296:Lid 4131:". 4053:any 4024:you 3890:to 3744:-- 3670:DPI 3418:use 3346:: " 3282:up. 3121:At 2328:) . 1974:or 1906:pro 1413:GPL 1391:GPL 901:nsd 887:not 413:or 401:or 200:one 4884:is 4799:}} 4793:{{ 4714:\ 4672:\ 4628:\ 4596:\ 4579:• 4567:\ 4549:• 4544:. 4520:-- 4469:” 4462:“ 4415:JW 4199:” 4192:“ 4162:” 4137:(" 4120:“ 4113::- 3998:-- 3988:) 3938:no 3919:\ 3868:. 3845:-- 3762:. 3661:, 3658:, 3655:, 3382:-- 3294:or 3267:-- 3218:-- 3155:, 3141:, 3138:, 3135:, 3132:, 3032:-- 3012:ng 2971:-- 2954:-- 2909:) 2907:Oy 2897:. 2794:}} 2788:{{ 2708:) 2706:Oy 2633:) 2625:-- 2614:• 2603:\ 2573:• 2558:• 2546:) 2505:• 2483:ng 2460:}} 2454:{{ 2450:}} 2444:{{ 2431:}} 2425:{{ 2421:}} 2415:{{ 2411:}} 2405:{{ 2392:}} 2386:{{ 2382:}} 2376:{{ 2324:• 2106:• 2077:". 1957:. 1846:-- 1768:}} 1762:{{ 1698:}} 1692:{{ 1595:-- 1476:}} 1470:{{ 1450:) 1426:}} 1420:{{ 1416:}} 1410:{{ 1382:) 1200:• 1195:. 1180:• 1155:· 1151:XP 1138:· 1134:XP 1092:-- 1084:· 1080:XP 950:ʈ 937:is 904:}} 898:{{ 849:}} 843:{{ 756:, 743:}} 737:{{ 685:Ci 653:• 633:• 628:. 492:}} 486:{{ 481:}} 475:{{ 163:) 94:→ 64:← 4929:— 4858:— 3986:☎ 3984:( 3824:) 3820:( 3735:" 3717:: 3350:" 3337:" 3298:" 3021:} 3017:{ 3006:e 2905:/ 2901:( 2704:/ 2700:( 2631:☎ 2629:( 2542:( 2492:} 2488:{ 2477:e 2320:( 1808:n 1803:e 1731:s 1726:e 1632:s 1627:e 1585:s 1580:e 1548:s 1543:e 1497:s 1492:e 1446:( 1378:( 1345:T 1306:T 829:" 689:e 570:. 405:. 156:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Non-free content/Archive 10 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index