File talk:OregonTrailScreenshot.png

Vfd discussion

 * This screenshot file is used on Oregon Trail under a fair use claim. However, the rationale does not fit the need to include the screenshot. The rationale gives three items:
 * 1. Accurately illustrates Oregon Trail (computer game)
 * This would be fine if the article was about the video game rather than the Trail.
 * 2. Aids in recognition of the subject matter
 * This goes back to number 1 above and would be fine if the article was about the game.
 * 3. Low-res screenshot unlikely to compromise anyone's IP rights
 * This is actually a fairly common mistake. Any copy of the work, or part of the work, is infringing on the rights of the copyright holder. Fair use does not negate those rights but does grant the user a limited usage of the work.
 * It is true the article does talk about the game but the absence of this screenshot will not make that text unusable. Indeed part of the text that deals with the game focuses on arguments between schoolkids playing the game under techer's supervision. Take that away and there is some useful text but nothing that particularly needs the screenshot. Green Giant (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ibaman, please do not delete VfD-nominated files until we have a consensus to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger. Will comply. Ibaman (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose the relevant part of our Exemption Doctrine Policy is that the images should "contribute to the quality of one or more travel guide articles". I think it does. The article is not about the game, but the game is referenced throughout the article, so a pictorial reference to the game adds value, both for those reading the article out of nostalgia and those who never saw the game played. So 1) and 2) are valid (the points could perhaps be made more clearly, but that is not important for the VfD). --LPfi (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. They're relevant to the article, and I don't understand the point of proactively getting rid of fair-use images just because they may possibly be unable to withstand a legal challenge. If we get a cease-and-desist letter from MECC, then sure, delete it. Otherwise, why not just leave well enough alone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think that the picture is relevant. A reader is unlikely to have played the came this week, so a picture is an important memory jogger for somebody who last played the game 10 years ago. Therefore the editorial use is justified. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah I suppose we could take the approach that it doesn't matter as long as the owner doesn't know (is it really breaking the law?). Seriously, it wouldn't hurt to just think about copyright carefully once in a while, rather than dismissing it as a minor issue, a bridge to be crossed when we get there. The only reason I came across the file (and the two listed before it) is because it was listed on Special:UncategorizedFiles (but that is not important here). Rather than leaving it alone, I think it is better to fix the problem e.g. add a clearer fair use rationale and a copyright tag. Just so it is clear, I was going to just add Non-free image but which license applies to an unfree screenshot? Could we import one of the rationale templates from Wikipedia and use that instead? P.S. (apologies Alasdair) maybe I missed it but where else is the game mentioned apart from the two paragraphs next to the image? Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many references throughout the text, like "While prices have risen since Matt's General Store was selling foodstuffs at $0.20/lb in the game, ...", "For travellers (and players), this was ...", "You have reached Independence Rock. Would you like to look around?" and "Wrong trail. Lose 3-4 days." --LPfi (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm.... sorry but those mentions don’t meet fair use requirements. The Matt's General Store comment is purely incidental ie comparing prices and is not intended as game commentary. The "(and players)" is far too trivial to say it justifies fair use (bearing in mind this is a travel guide, and not a game walkthrough). The Independence Rock comment does not mention the game - indeed it simply suggests the traveller might want to look around the area, not look around in the game. The Wrong Trail comment is suggesting the traveller might take a detour, not that a player has taken the wrong trail in the game. Are there any other actual game commentaries, not incidental mentions? Green Giant (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not know US copyright law, so I am not commenting the legal aspect, just the importance for the article, which is relevant for the EDP. The point is that the trail is described as related to the game, which is reflected in such "incidental" wordings. I believe the "Would you like..." and "Wrong trail..." are direct quotes, and the wordings are indeed not what would have been chosen otherwise. And yes, the article is about the trail, not about the game, but the "incidental" wordings are direct references to the game and without them we would have a fundamentally different article. If you want to argue that illustrations are allowed as fair use only in articles about the product, then say so and let us have the legal argument. --LPfi (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that many people on Wikimedia don't know the law well, which is why I specifically try to avoid getting into a legal debate (there are more than enough of those on Wikipedia and Commons). Let me try a different line of thinking since you pointed to it earlier. Looking at the exemption doctrine policy:
 * 1. The only non-free content allowed on the English Wikivoyage is as follows:
 * Brief textual excerpts from copyrighted media for illustrative or informative purposes
 * Photographs of copyrighted artwork and architecture
 * This screenshot does not fit either of those categories. Looking at any of the arguments used above for keeping the image, I don't see any policy-based justifications. Can you point to a WV policy that permits the use of the screenshot? Green Giant (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose the computer screen can qualify as an artwork (rather that than literature, and the prose is covered in your quote). The difference between a photography and a screenshot may be important legally, but I do not think there is any principal difference, such that anyone should oppose including screenshots (and taking a photo of the screen would not change our discussion here on any relevant point). So there is no use deleting because of policy wording if there might be a consensus on changing the wording if need be. Let us concentrate either on what we want or on what we can do (legally or as restricted by WMF policy). --LPfi (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don’t see how this qualifies as artwork but if this is the consensus of the community then we need to seriously update the EDP. I don’t think there will be any objection by the WMF as long as there is consensus (obviously within the limits of the law). Green Giant (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it literature? If it isn't that and isn't a work of art, then under what provision is it under copyright? (There are only some classes of works that are.) Anyway that has little bearing on the issue itself. --LPfi (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get into too much of a legal debate but please refer to US Code 17, which states that "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." I have underlined the crucial part, which means it doesn't have to be just literature or art. There obviously exceptions, which are listed further down that page but none of them apply to this work. Green Giant (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. The Finnish law instead lists some categories, and I suppose EU does the same, so as no other category fits naturally, it feels natural to treat that screenshot as a work of art. But that is irrelevant (other than that our policy may have to be amended). The relevant thing is on what basis one can argue fair use. --LPfi (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But hey, the link gives a list of categories, just as ours. I suppose the screenshot can hardly be anything but a "pictorial, graphic, [or] sculptural work", plus the prose as a literary work, except perhaps as an excerpt of something else. --LPfi (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Video game design, even the clunky design of 1980s-era Apple ][e games, very clearly falls under the umbrella of art. I can't believe we're even arguing otherwise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is up to the game designer to decide which category they want to register their copyright, so it isn't necessarily artwork. Anyway, you are right that there is no point arguing till we are blue in the face. I can accept you guys believe you are right, if you can accept that I believe I am right. I have started some basic templates (Non-free use rationale and Non-free screenshot) and added them to the image description. In my honest opinion, if nobody has a problem with these templates, then legally we should be covered. Feel free to fiddle with the design of the templates. Green Giant (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe worth removing the link to archive.org, and replacing with w:The Oregon Trail (video game) ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: kept. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)