The gallery of "fair use" full calendar pages Edit

I recall a discussion, some time ago, where it was decided that using full scans of calendar pages could not be justified as fair use. The calendar is a collection of works, and a scan of one page or layout is a copy of a complete work. It also fails because of the effect on the work's value. If someone can come here and see each page, then they might not buy the calendar. The group of people who would visit this site and the group of people who would be interested in such a calendar overlaps considerably. I think those should probably be removed. --bp 07:29, October 11, 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I'm one of those people you mention. If I could have found the images online I would never have purchased the calendar. I'm all for showing a cropped excerpt or a small promotional image that one can find on one of the websites that sell the calendar, but to display the entire image here seems to undermine the point of the calendar (and therefore ensure that we may not get any more in the years to come). Of course, after a year or two of release, and if the artist and/or publisher has released the full image/s into the public domain, then I see no reason why we can't display those images here. -- Cyfa (talk) 09:52, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
OK, so after a quick search, I've discovered that Amazon are displaying the full January and February images, and are showing the July and August images. So, I guess as those are the images displayed here they're OK to stay? -- Cyfa (talk) 10:11, October 13, 2014 (UTC) and aren't claiming fair use, they have permission to use those images to sell the calendar. Furthermore, these pictures appear to be the exact same image files from those sites, which makes it worse. --bp 15:21, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definite issues with the images; the fact that they are from Amazon might be enough to necessitate their removal, leaving aside the fact they are calendar images. 31dot (talk) 16:18, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
How are images from Amazon, or for that matter, different from other promotional and/or marketing material? Unless they are explicitly said to be exclusive or otherwise restricted, using these images shouldn't be any different than using images of posters or DVD/Blu-ray covers, because the material was knowingly released as part of marketing the product, and we're only cataloging and archiving that material. Our efforts in that manner actually have a net benefit for all involved parties, and I would think that if these images are directly from those sites, we would actually be better off claiming fair use since we clearly didn't use material that wasn't already being used to sell the product. - Archduk3 23:48, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure this discussion has happened already, and it would be nice to find it, but I haven't been able to. It may have been in IRC, but I was pretty sure some part of it happened in talk pages somewhere. Anyway, these arguments are already had, and I'm fairly sure the consensus was that a copy of an entire work did not qualify as "fair use". Trying to answer your questions:

  1. "How are images from Amazon, or for that matter, different from other promotional and/or marketing material?"
    • Others having permission to use part of the work for promotional purposes does not mean everyone does/we do.
  2. "Unless they are explicitly said to be exclusive or otherwise restricted, using these images shouldn't be any different than using images of posters or DVD/Blu-ray covers..."
    • They don't have to explicitly forbid our use, they have to specifically authorize our use, that's what copyright means.
    • A cover to identify the thing the article is about, is allowed by fair use.
    • People don't buy DVD's for the cover, so it doesn't affect the value of the work. (amount relative to whole work and effect on value are both tests for fair use)
  3. "Our efforts ... actually have a net benefit for all involved parties..."
    • That we feel it benefits the rightsholder, does not mean they feel the same. It doesn't grant us any permission and doesn't qualify as doing them a favor.

This site really does get away with alot under the name of fair use, but in this case its just way too much, mostly becuse of the size relative to the whole, but also because its just a gallery of each page, its not for identification or review or parody or any case that be justified as "fair use". --bp 01:41, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the process to determine fair use, it's come up more than a few times in the past few years, and I'm sure we're good on all of the factors here. I doubt we could be found to be depriving them of value by archiving their own marketing material, since we are only using the parts the rights holders themselves made publicly available, which is way less than a substantial portion of the total work. Also, we can even argue that since the ISBN link can be a POS for Amazon, we are actually using the works directly for their intended purpose on the off chance that archiving, which is fair use, somehow wouldn't be enough.
That said, I'm not going to go back and forth point by point, since it seems you missed the point I was trying to make anyway, and fair use is determined on a case by case basis that doesn't factor in hard and fast rules or even similar cases. The perceived threat of hosting these images though, is, IMO, more than half a decade out of date, as would be any decision made regarding what I'm sure was an image of the Enterprise-J, regardless of if that was on site or not. The most recent fair use discussion I can think of that is relevant is when we kept a whole bunch of trading card images, though I'm not sure which set/page that's located on right now. If we're looking for a precedent to follow here, it should be that one. - Archduk3 06:32, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

No, very much no, we're not good on any of the factors. Amazon (or anyone) having permission to use material is not equivalent to everyone having permission. It's also 100% of the work considering each page is a work, in this set of 12 collected works. Even if you say we only have 4/12ths of the work, then thats a third of the total work, and quite substantial! (A screencap, by comparison is maybe 1/108000th of the work) And again, it doesn't matter that we think we're doing them a favor. But now, we've both said the exact same thing twice, and it maybe we should wait for someone else to weigh in. --bp 07:07, October 14, 2014 (UTC)


Eh, I'm back for a day and already worked up about something small. So forget it, I withdraw the entire argument. --bp 07:18, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know how to add to this discussion, but if you need the Jan and Feb images I would be more than happy to give scaled down versions to Memory Alpha for use - ~~Jenny DeSalle (Artist for Jan and Feb) ~~

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+