Same concerns here. These are far higher resolution than is necessary to depict the item in question. They are also scanned in a layout which is suitable for reproduction. We need to have a serious discussion about this. --Quasar (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2015 (CDT)
- [IANAL] Your description fits nearly every contribution by this user. I can't blame them, I guess, since most of the internet doesn't discuss copyright and our written rules don't mention scan resolutions. It's happened before:
- Even screenshots have grown over the years:
- Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have a committee who can unilaterally impose RL-related policies. Whatever our regulars can agree on, that's what will happen (i.e. by communicating with new users immediately to avoid bigger messes later). The criterion should be easy to remember or state as a guideline, so that the smart uploaders, the ones we want to keep, can apply it themselves. Ryan W (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2015 (CDT)
- Fortunately they already have these kinds of discussions though: Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". I am not set on their guidelines of "400px" and especially not on their fair use page's suggestion that 320x240 is suitable or that all images must be the *minimum* resolution, but I AM pretty sure that one thing we need to avoid for fair use media are copies suitable for use in reproduction, which you already admitted on IRC but fail to reiterate here. --Quasar (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2015 (CDT)
- As far as those individual images go:
- * Larger than it needs to be. There are no fine details that would be lost. This one should be considered the same as the others and scaled to reasonable size.
- * Photograph at an extremely oblique angle. Not suitable for repro, not subject to the same arguments.
- * Fairly small already and consists entirely of elements that are not subject to copyright (plain text, and a trademarked logo, on a bare black background). May not even meet minimum creativity requirements under copyright law. Least concern.
- * Screenshots don't need to be dragged into an argument about print media. They do not replicate the entirety of a game or the experience of playing it so, they are irrelevant to the discussion.
- --Quasar (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2015 (CDT)
- I did not address these legal details because I don't think it's the right approach for a guideline. Useful content is lost when uploaders are asked to apply complex reasoning like this, because most will simply stop uploading. Yes, we can put up a guideline with lots of bullets covering many situations, according to our collective grasp of the law, but that's begging for it to be TLDRed. We should be posting rules because we think people can follow them, not just to protect the project with fine print (although ideally that happens too).
- My point with the examples, perhaps unclear, was not to claim they are legally equivalent, only to show that huge images are an infrastructural issue rather than one newbie doing something rash. You've proposed a change in the guideline discussing scans, so I'm guessing we agree on that at least. Ryan W (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2015 (CDT)