Image:GhostfaceKillahSupremeClientele.jpg

Wikipedia doesn't need [copyright] permission for something like this. It is covered under fair use because it is used to illustrate a relevant factual article and could not replace the actual product (which is the music), and is too small to even adequately replace the packaging it would be a copyright violation of. Tuf-Kat (slightly rephrased)

See fair use. Under American copyright law, protected works can be used under certain circumstances (and the Wikipedia server is located in the US). There are few guarantees, but album covers, video box covers, etc are certain to qualify. Think of how many music websites have a little pic of the album cover next to a review -- they don't need permission, nor do they have to pay royalties. Fair use is actually pretty liberal, especially for a primarily non-profit and educational project like Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat

The law rarely makes sense ("I'm going to place a now where there is no law, only justice", The Octaroon[?] by Dion Boucicault). A photograph of a person not used as an album cover or something similar is very different (though fair use may still apply) because it can much more easily replace the product. No one buys an album for the cover, but a photograph on its own can be a product. I didn't really follow it, but I think that copyright concerns was only part of the reasons behind the Rachel Corrie photos being deleted. I won't express an opinion on any specific photos being fair use or not, but album covers are pretty unambiguous. [...] Tuf-Kat (slightly rephrased)

Image links

There are no pages that link to this image.