User talk:QTwrites
Progress
WRT your question to User:Richard about copyrighted images...
My own interpretation of Wikialpha:CSD is that, since copyright violations are a deletion criteria, that implies we should not, generally, use copyrighted images.
However, American law allows for an exception - "fair use".
The underlying theory behind copyright - and patents - is that inventions and other creative works are of benefit to the general public. When I was a kid this was called "Progress", and almost everyone believed in it. Old Order Mennonites, and Amish, lovely people, who drive buggies, and don't use electricity, do not believe in progress. The Taliban, also did not believe in progress, which is why they outlawed movies, and musical performances.
But almost everyone else did. The theory was that patents and copyrights gave inventors and creators a way to make money from their inventions and creations, that this meant they might make more inventions or creations, and this would help everybody.
American law's "fair use" says that there are times when publications' need to use a proprietary image is more important than the original rights holders' need to make a profit. A clear-cut example would be when a photographer takes a photo of someone that is so significant that reporters and other commentators actually report on the photo, in addition to, or sometimes even instead of, the actual subject of the photo.
Publishers routinely feel safe re-using proprietary images in those cases. "Fair use" sometimes gets used in more questionable circumstances, like, this person is dead, and no free images exist of them. The rationale, "I looked, and I can't find any public domain or freely licensed images" is used less often, but some publications seem to routinely use it.
Are you old enough to remember the SARS crisis? It was a pandemic that struck a decade or more before COVID. It was scary because it could be fatal, and infection was unpredictable. In the end, although there was a world-wide panic, the USA was very lightly affected. Canada, with a population about a tenth that of the USA had about 100 times as many deaths.
Allan Rock was then Canada's Minister of Health.
Health care workers were by far the most at risk.
In the first week or two there was an anti-viral drug that it was suspected would prevent those encountering an infected individual from acquiring the disease.
Minister of Health Rock personally contacted the Pharmaceutical company with the rights to distribute that patented anti-viral drug, inquiring as to a bulk price for enough doses to give it to every front-line health worker.
That Pharmaceutical company was an American owned branch plant of a big American company, and they were all Americans. When the senior executive met to discuss Rock's request, they decided they would tell him Canada could not buy a single dose. Why? Patriotism. They decided to reserve all the stock for the USA.
So, Rock contacted every other drug company in Canada, and asked them to make emergency bids on their ability to supply those doses.
When he did that the executives at the original company went ballistic, because THEY owned the rights to that drug, in Canada.
Well, in this case, them making a profit off the drug would have been much less important than issuing the potentially life-saving doses to the frontline health workers. I would have stripped the patent rights from that company. I would have deported those executives, and made them inadmissable to return to Canada.
I think this anecdote illustrates why it is important to remember the underlying rationale behind patents and copyright.
Fair use on the English language Wikipedia is whacked. It is interpreted far more restrictively that fair use law, with proponents of the restrictive interpretation disallowing any use where the photographer might ever make a dime.
So, what is my advice, for what it is worth? Include the URL to the page where you found the image. If you think you have a fair use rationale for using the image, offer it.
