Exemption Doctrine Policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Exemption Doctrine Policy

Judson Dunn-2
From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
for its use (possibly in the abstract)?

Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
"...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.

Please read the discussion if you have time, but as a short summary we
are finding that requiring unique rationales for certain image classes
to be causing more trouble than it is worth. It is leading to fairly
open anger towards our image policies in general, as I know some of
you are aware :)  Thanks for your input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#What_are_we_really_accomplishing_here.3F

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exemption Doctrine Policy

Luna-4
On 8/7/07, cohesion <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
> guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
> foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
> rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
> for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
>
> Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
> "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
> whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
> the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
>

"Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable
rationale..."

"...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."

Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken,
but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My
current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
explicitly.

But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just
a nosy list member. ;)

-Luna
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exemption Doctrine Policy

Kat Walsh-4
On 8/8/07, Luna <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/7/07, cohesion <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
> > guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
> > foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
> > rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
> > for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
> >
> > Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
> > "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
> > whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
> > the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
> >
>
> "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable
> rationale..."
>
> "...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
> process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
>
> Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken,
> but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My
> current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
> explicitly.
>
> But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just
> a nosy list member. ;)

Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
set policy that way.

(Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
reason to think any would disagree.)

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exemption Doctrine Policy

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Out of curiosity, the board insists on an "exemption doctrine policy" for
those Wiki projects that insist to make exemptions and include data that
does not conform to the official policy that has otherwise to be complied
with. As there are legal implications to not conforming to the official
policy, a risc is created that makes the WMF vulnerable to legal
proceedings. As the existence is officially mandated, the WMF seems to take
responsibility for these policies.

How can the WMF take the responsibility for "exemption doctrine policies"
when they are not written down and as a consequence cannot be checked
against pertinent laws in pertinent countries ??

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 8/8/07, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/8/07, Luna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 8/7/07, cohesion <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
> > > guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
> > > foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
> > > rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
> > > for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
> > >
> > > Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
> > > "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
> > > whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
> > > the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
> > >
> >
> > "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an
> applicable
> > rationale..."
> >
> > "...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
> > process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
> >
> > Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be
> mistaken,
> > but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in
> writing. My
> > current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
> > explicitly.
> >
> > But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity,
> just
> > a nosy list member. ;)
>
> Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
> boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
> applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
> just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
> using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
> exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
> en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
> set policy that way.
>
> (Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
> are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
> reason to think any would disagree.)
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
> mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Exemption Doctrine Policy

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
Kat Walsh wrote:

> On 8/8/07, Luna <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 8/7/07, cohesion <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
>>> guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
>>> foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
>>> rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
>>> for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
>>>
>>> Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
>>> "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
>>> whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
>>> the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
>>>
>>>      
>> "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable
>> rationale..."
>>
>> "...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
>> process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
>>
>> Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken,
>> but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My
>> current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
>> explicitly.
>>
>> But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just
>> a nosy list member. ;)
>>    
>
> Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
> boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
> applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
> just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
> using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
> exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
> en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
> set policy that way.
>
> (Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
> are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
> reason to think any would disagree.)
>
> -Kat
>
>  
While we're at it here, a clarification on what constitutes "minimal"
use wouldn't be a terribly bad idea either. It seems the ideas on that
range from "Pretty much anywhere we could legally get away with it" to
"Only in a very few cases". There seems to be especial heat over
album/book/movie covers, movie and game screenshots, etc., and whether
those should be allowed in all such articles or only where they're
specifically discussed in the article or actually illustrate article
text, rather than simply just to "be there".


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment