Fair use images

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 3/10/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> It is a disservice to our users not to have logos in Commons. People
>> often know the logos of companies or products better then they do the
>> name. An article like IBM, Shell, Greenpeace should have the company
>> logo to illustrate the article.
>>
>>    
> I really don't see how one necessitates the other.  Commons doesn't
> have articles, after all.  If you put logos into Commons, then you
> make it much harder for anyone who wants to legally distribute dumps
> of Commons.
>
> Of course, by that rationale, the WMF logo shouldn't be on Commons
> either.  Either that, or it should be released under a free license.
>
> Anthony
Hoi,
Commons does not have articles. Commons has its own functionality. Its
purpose is to serve digital content to the WMF projects first and as a
repository of content second. At this moment we cannot have logos
because they need protection from people making derivatives.
Organisations  cannot license us to have their logo under anything but a
ND license. It is dogma that prevents us from considering this.

Thanks,
   GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 3/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I don't agree at all.  Our goal is to make a free content
> > > encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost.  ND
> > > content is not free.
> > >
> > Neither is "fair use content", of course.
>
> And I went into an extensive explination of why fair use is a
> reasonable exception, but you ignored it.
>
Because your explanation of the reasonable exception applied equally
to ND content, moreso even.

> > No, you misunderstand.  ND images would only be allowed in situations
> > where fair use images are currently allowed.
>
> Explain how this would work?
> So would we only allow images while, while being ND, we could also
> claim fair use?
> Guess what: We already permit that on enwiki.
>
> If that isn't what you mean, how can you claim that they would only be
> allowed where where fair use images are allowed?
>
I'm suggesting that this be the policy, of course.  That ND images
only be used in situations where there is no free alternative, i.e.
the situations where fair use is supposed to be limited to right now.

> > > It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content.
> > >
> > I just don't see what freedom is being given up.  An image which *is*
> > licensed under CC-ND is more free than an image which is not.
>
> Of all the outragious bullshit...  Sure, an image under CC-ND is more
> free than a random unlicensed work.  It would not be more free than
> the free images they would replace if we permitted them.
>
I never suggested replacing free images with non-free ones.

> The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were
> photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to
> wikipedia.

Count me as a first, then.

> > Hey, if your answer is to remove all non-free images completely from
> > Wikipedia, you have no objection from me.  My suggestion was merely to
> > replace one set of non-free images with another set of non-free images
> > which were more free.
>
> You are either misrepresenting your position (that it really is to
> only perform a 1:1 replacement), or your argument is pointless because
> we already permit it  (If a work is fair use we don't care about its
> license terms, you can upload BY-NC-ND stuff all day as fair use on
> enwiki).

And you can also upload so called "fair use images" which aren't
BY-NC-ND (by the way, my suggestion was BY-ND, not BY-NC-ND).

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

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Commons does not have articles. Commons has its own functionality. Its
> purpose is to serve digital content to the WMF projects first and as a
> repository of content second.

Frankly, I wasn't aware of that.

Maybe there's a need for an Uncommons, where WMF projects can share
digital content that isn't free.

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

Re: Fair use images

Robert S. Horning
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hoi,
>>Commons does not have articles. Commons has its own functionality. Its
>>purpose is to serve digital content to the WMF projects first and as a
>>repository of content second.
>>    
>>
>
>Frankly, I wasn't aware of that.
>
>Maybe there's a need for an Uncommons, where WMF projects can share
>digital content that isn't free.
>
>Anthony
>  
>
There is a bunch of content that is technically free but only available
under a non-commercial use only license.  A repository of that sort
would be a contrast to Wikimedia Commons, where non-commercial only
licenses are not acceptable.  As for content that isn't free, try Corbis
or one of the commercial stock photo libraries.  Those have been around
for the better part of a century and have a huge image library that will
take some time for Commons to catch up to being equal to.

--
Robert Scott Horning



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

Re: Fair use images

Mark
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 3/10/06, Paweł Dembowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain
>>>fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on
>>>Wikipedia.
>>>      
>>>
>>Actually, most of the content is "fair use" only to United States
>>users.
>>
>>    
>>
>It's worse than that, it's only "fair use" for use within the United
>States.  Which means if an American wants to distribute a copy of
>Wikipedia to someone in Africa, they have to break the law.
>
>And I'd dispute that fair use by Wikipedia means fair use by a large
>majority of the downstream users.  Wikipedia can and will get away
>with a lot of things that others can't and won't.
>  
>
This seems like a needlessly anti-fair-use position.  It may be accurate
that *some* cases of fair use are fair use only in the United States, or
only for Wikipedia, but that's hardly true of all of them, or even the
majority of them.  Every time we quote an exact sentence or paragraph
from a published work that's still in copyright, we're doing so under
fair use (or fair dealing, or whatever the equivalent in various
countries is), and this seems both unproblematic and something that the
encyclopedia would be much worse off without.  Perhaps fair use of
images is less widely respected internationally than fair use of textual
excerpts, but being more careful with some types of fair use is
different than abolishing fair-use content on Wikipedia entirely.

-Mark

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

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Delirium wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>  
>> On 3/10/06, Paweł Dembowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>    
>>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>      
>>>> It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain
>>>> fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on
>>>> Wikipedia.
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Actually, most of the content is "fair use" only to United States
>>> users.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>      
>> It's worse than that, it's only "fair use" for use within the United
>> States.  Which means if an American wants to distribute a copy of
>> Wikipedia to someone in Africa, they have to break the law.
>>
>> And I'd dispute that fair use by Wikipedia means fair use by a large
>> majority of the downstream users.  Wikipedia can and will get away
>> with a lot of things that others can't and won't.
>>  
>>
>>    
> This seems like a needlessly anti-fair-use position.  It may be accurate
> that *some* cases of fair use are fair use only in the United States, or
> only for Wikipedia, but that's hardly true of all of them, or even the
> majority of them.  Every time we quote an exact sentence or paragraph
> from a published work that's still in copyright, we're doing so under
> fair use (or fair dealing, or whatever the equivalent in various
> countries is), and this seems both unproblematic and something that the
> encyclopedia would be much worse off without.  Perhaps fair use of
> images is less widely respected internationally than fair use of textual
> excerpts, but being more careful with some types of fair use is
> different than abolishing fair-use content on Wikipedia entirely.
>
> -Mark
Hoi,
There is no need to be anti fair use. It has no bearing on most
projects. The English language wikipedia is the only one where you could
argue that the American rules apply completely. So its application is
largely overrated. It is much more important to find a way that would
allow us to have a logo of a company in all the other projects. Forget
the English Wikipedia, it is only the biggest. The last time I heard
about it the other projects grow faster than en.wikipedia. So let us
address the issues of these other projects.

I do not want to abolish fair-use I could not care less. It just does
not apply to what I want done, on the projects where there is a need.

Thanks,
    GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Mark
Avoid Copyright Paranoia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Robert S. Horning
On 3/10/06, Robert Scott Horning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hoi,
> >>Commons does not have articles. Commons has its own functionality. Its
> >>purpose is to serve digital content to the WMF projects first and as a
> >>repository of content second.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Frankly, I wasn't aware of that.
> >
> >Maybe there's a need for an Uncommons, where WMF projects can share
> >digital content that isn't free.
> >
> >Anthony
> >
> >
> There is a bunch of content that is technically free but only available
> under a non-commercial use only license.  A repository of that sort
> would be a contrast to Wikimedia Commons, where non-commercial only
> licenses are not acceptable.  As for content that isn't free, try Corbis
> or one of the commercial stock photo libraries.  Those have been around
> for the better part of a century and have a huge image library that will
> take some time for Commons to catch up to being equal to.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning

I was counting in content only available under a non-commercial use
only license as non-free.  Not sure what you mean by "technically
free".

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

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Mark
On 3/10/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 3/10/06, Paweł Dembowski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain
> >>>fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on
> >>>Wikipedia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Actually, most of the content is "fair use" only to United States
> >>users.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >It's worse than that, it's only "fair use" for use within the United
> >States.  Which means if an American wants to distribute a copy of
> >Wikipedia to someone in Africa, they have to break the law.
> >
> >And I'd dispute that fair use by Wikipedia means fair use by a large
> >majority of the downstream users.  Wikipedia can and will get away
> >with a lot of things that others can't and won't.
> >
> >
> This seems like a needlessly anti-fair-use position.  It may be accurate
> that *some* cases of fair use are fair use only in the United States, or
> only for Wikipedia, but that's hardly true of all of them, or even the
> majority of them.  Every time we quote an exact sentence or paragraph
> from a published work that's still in copyright, we're doing so under
> fair use (or fair dealing, or whatever the equivalent in various
> countries is), and this seems both unproblematic and something that the
> encyclopedia would be much worse off without.  Perhaps fair use of
> images is less widely respected internationally than fair use of textual
> excerpts, but being more careful with some types of fair use is
> different than abolishing fair-use content on Wikipedia entirely.
>
> -Mark

Well, I thought we were talking about images, which is what I'd
restrict my statement to.

I don't see how my statements are "anti-fair-use", though I don't even
know what that means.  I do think that anything in a Wikipedia article
should at the least be legal for me to print and sell.  If that
position is "anti-fair-use", then I guess I'm "anti-fair-use".

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

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm suggesting that this be the policy, of course.  That ND images
> only be used in situations where there is no free alternative, i.e.
> the situations where fair use is supposed to be limited to right now.

Not where their can be no free alternative but where we haven't found one yet.
Fair use isn't a license to liberally violate copyright, "We don't
have one yet" isn't a valid excuse to claim fair use. Or, more
clearly, it is necessary but not sufficient.

> I never suggested replacing free images with non-free ones.

You want to make it possible for people who think they are helping
Wikipedia to submit unfree content where free content is possible.

> > The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were
> > photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to
> > wikipedia.
>
> Count me as a first, then.

And what content do you hold the copyright to that we currently use as
fair use... You claim that you only want us to use BY-ND where we use
fair use, so show me an example.

The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. By
deciding that you will only release your content under an unfree
license you are deciding not to help Wikipedia with its goals, at
least in the area of illustrations.  That okay, you are not obligated
morally or legally to help.   But don't lobby us to change the rules
so that you can claim, dishonestly, to be helping with our project.

We've grant our contributors attribution, we allow them to use the
GFDL and enforce it (strictly enforced the GFDL is annoying enough for
many common commercial uses that it's easy to get people interested in
commercial use to agree to an outside license),  .... and now you also
want us to allow you to submit content which no one down stream can
alter and damage your precious artistic vision. Give me a break, we
can go without your onerous requirements.

If we ever swallow a stupid pill and permit you to upload ND works
simply because we haven't found a more free image yet, I promise
replace every last one with a free image, even if I have to travel the
world to do it, just to piss you off.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>  
>> I'm suggesting that this be the policy, of course.  That ND images
>> only be used in situations where there is no free alternative, i.e.
>> the situations where fair use is supposed to be limited to right now.
>>    
>
> Not where their can be no free alternative but where we haven't found one yet.
> Fair use isn't a license to liberally violate copyright, "We don't
> have one yet" isn't a valid excuse to claim fair use. Or, more
> clearly, it is necessary but not sufficient.
>
>  
>> I never suggested replacing free images with non-free ones.
>>    
>
> You want to make it possible for people who think they are helping
> Wikipedia to submit unfree content where free content is possible.
>
>  
>>> The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were
>>> photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to
>>> wikipedia.
>>>      
>> Count me as a first, then.
>>    
>
> And what content do you hold the copyright to that we currently use as
> fair use... You claim that you only want us to use BY-ND where we use
> fair use, so show me an example.
>
> The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. By
> deciding that you will only release your content under an unfree
> license you are deciding not to help Wikipedia with its goals, at
> least in the area of illustrations.  That okay, you are not obligated
> morally or legally to help.   But don't lobby us to change the rules
> so that you can claim, dishonestly, to be helping with our project.
>
> We've grant our contributors attribution, we allow them to use the
> GFDL and enforce it (strictly enforced the GFDL is annoying enough for
> many common commercial uses that it's easy to get people interested in
> commercial use to agree to an outside license),  .... and now you also
> want us to allow you to submit content which no one down stream can
> alter and damage your precious artistic vision. Give me a break, we
> can go without your onerous requirements.
>
> If we ever swallow a stupid pill and permit you to upload ND works
> simply because we haven't found a more free image yet, I promise
> replace every last one with a free image, even if I have to travel the
> world to do it, just to piss you off.
Hoi,
This sounds very much doctrinal. It sounds like "them and us" and "they
are wrong and we will not talk because it is not negotionable". Freedom
is served by informing properly. Freedom is served by telling the whole
story. People are liberated by giving them NPOV information. When it is
not possible to have your "free" pictures or whatever EVER, stop
preaching, stop rediculing, engage brain function... We liberate by
telling it straight; the honest truth and nothing but the NPOV truth.

There are many examples where it is REASONABLE and to be expected that
no changes to material is made. Logos are a great example. You are
talking in terms of conflict. You are not talking in terms of our aim.
Informing people by providing content that is Free for everybody to use.
Content that is as Free as it is possible to have it. It is unreasonable
to expect that when laws make for content that can *only *be had in a ND
way not to make an exception because of dogma. Mind you I am talking
about information where the information cannot be had in any other way.
Information like logos.

Thanks,
    GerardM
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> There are many examples where it is REASONABLE and to be expected that
> no changes to material is made. Logos are a great example. You are
> talking in terms of conflict. You are not talking in terms of our aim.
> Informing people by providing content that is Free for everybody to use.
> Content that is as Free as it is possible to have it. It is unreasonable
> to expect that when laws make for content that can *only *be had in a ND
> way not to make an exception because of dogma. Mind you I am talking
> about information where the information cannot be had in any other way.
> Information like logos.

Your reasoning is not lost on others. This is, largely, why we permit
fair use on enwiki. But we don't confuse ourselves, unfree content is
unfree.  In the US we are fortunate that the courts have reconized the
harm that could be caused by giving copyright holder unlimited power
over their works. And the discussion on this ND matter has been
directly related to enwiki.

I'm still waiting for an example of a reasonable situation where we
should accept ND content that isn't covered by our inclusion of fair
use.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Forget about en.wikipedia !!!!

It is not about en.wikipedia.

Please engage brain or read what has been said.  It is about COMMONS
and OTHER projects. So forget about the fair use policy. It does not
apply.

And when you persist in thinking en.wikipedia .. do not talk about US.
There is more in this world. There are more projects in the WMF and
this IS the foundation mailing list.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 3/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > There are many examples where it is REASONABLE and to be expected that
> > no changes to material is made. Logos are a great example. You are
> > talking in terms of conflict. You are not talking in terms of our aim.
> > Informing people by providing content that is Free for everybody to use.
> > Content that is as Free as it is possible to have it. It is unreasonable
> > to expect that when laws make for content that can *only *be had in a ND
> > way not to make an exception because of dogma. Mind you I am talking
> > about information where the information cannot be had in any other way.
> > Information like logos.
>
> Your reasoning is not lost on others. This is, largely, why we permit
> fair use on enwiki. But we don't confuse ourselves, unfree content is
> unfree.  In the US we are fortunate that the courts have reconized the
> harm that could be caused by giving copyright holder unlimited power
> over their works. And the discussion on this ND matter has been
> directly related to enwiki.
>
> I'm still waiting for an example of a reasonable situation where we
> should accept ND content that isn't covered by our inclusion of fair
> use.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Gregory Maxwell
On 3/10/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Forget about en.wikipedia !!!!
>
> It is not about en.wikipedia.

I suggest you look at the start of this thread. :)

Do you have a threading mail client?

> Please engage brain or read what has been said.  It is about COMMONS
> and OTHER projects. So forget about the fair use policy. It does not
> apply.

No, this is the direction you've tried to send the thread... but as
far as I can tell, no one else has followed.

> And when you persist in thinking en.wikipedia .. do not talk about US.
> There is more in this world. There are more projects in the WMF and
> this IS the foundation mailing list.

Agreed, but there are many other languages which permit something
roughly equivalent to fair use on enwiki.  It's not a US only concept,
but since I'm not very educated about the policies of other Wikis and
the laws of other countries, I'm stuck speaking in enwiki specific
terms.

Sorry.

If you're upset that other Wiki's refuse logos, then you should take
it up on those Wikis... any form of non-free content is going to too
controversial to force it on all languages by implementing a
substantial change in the character of commonswiki.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 3/10/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'm suggesting that this be the policy, of course.  That ND images
> > only be used in situations where there is no free alternative, i.e.
> > the situations where fair use is supposed to be limited to right now.
>
> Not where their can be no free alternative but where we haven't found one yet.

Well, not really.  I think fair use (and by extension, ND), should
only be used where there *isn't* a free alternative (and likely won't
ever be).

> Fair use isn't a license to liberally violate copyright, "We don't
> have one yet" isn't a valid excuse to claim fair use. Or, more
> clearly, it is necessary but not sufficient.
>
"We don't have a free alternative yet" has basically nothing to do
with whether or not the use is actually fair use.  But it should be
(and I believe it is) a necessary condition set by Wikipedia.  It's
Wikipedia policy, not law.

> > I never suggested replacing free images with non-free ones.
>
> You want to make it possible for people who think they are helping
> Wikipedia to submit unfree content where free content is possible.
>
No, I don't.  I frankly don't know where you're getting that from
because I've continually expressed exactly the opposite.

> > > The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were
> > > photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to
> > > wikipedia.
> >
> > Count me as a first, then.
>
> And what content do you hold the copyright to that we currently use as
> fair use... You claim that you only want us to use BY-ND where we use
> fair use, so show me an example.
>
I guess I misunderstood your statement.  I don't personally have any
images on the Wikipedia that I own the copyright to and haven't
released under a free license.

> The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. By
> deciding that you will only release your content under an unfree
> license you are deciding not to help Wikipedia with its goals, at
> least in the area of illustrations.  That okay, you are not obligated
> morally or legally to help.   But don't lobby us to change the rules
> so that you can claim, dishonestly, to be helping with our project.
>
If non-free images don't help Wikipedia, then why does Wikipedia allow
them at all?

> If we ever swallow a stupid pill and permit you to upload ND works
> simply because we haven't found a more free image yet, I promise
> replace every last one with a free image, even if I have to travel the
> world to do it, just to piss you off.

Well, there are some images for which getting a free alternative is impossible.

But hey, if I believed you, that alone would be a good reason to
implement the policy.  I'm not sure why you think replacing non-free
images with free ones would piss me off.

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

Re: Fair use images

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 3/10/06, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There are many examples where it is REASONABLE and to be expected that
> no changes to material is made. Logos are a great example.

Actually, pretty much any image being used for the purposes of
commentary is a good example.  And that's the only reason I can think
of that fair use should ever be acceptable in a free encyclopedia
anyway.

Take any non-free image on Wikipedia.  Most likely it is either 1) not
acceptable on Wikipedia, or 2) would be better if it were released
under CC-BY-ND.

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

Re: Fair use images

W. Guy Finley
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 3/9/06 11:08 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> W. Guy Finley wrote:
>
>> I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair
>> use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied.  I
>> bet that's more than half of them right there.  The process of tagging them
>> as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too
>> susceptible to error.  It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is
>> meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go.  It
>> shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the
>> perception.
>>
> When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long
> time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very
> short time to wait.  It avoids the error of creating unnecessary
> confusion.  Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that
> duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so.
> There's no reason to panic about this.
>
> Ec


Peruse IFD or CP lately Ray?  Have fun wading through it.  Nobody is
panicking, I think those who are trying to police images are getting worn
out.  After all, you make so many friends doing it.

To many editors "fair use" is "it's cool and I want to use it, that's fair"
and so they steal it and use it.  You put the blatant copyvio image up for
IFD and the uploader objects, no one else votes (because IFD is already full
of scores of copyvio images already, who wants to go and review them all
every day to vote on IFD) and the thing gets kept.

Even better, there are many editors who think that citing a website that is
a repository of copyvio and unlicensed images qualifies as the image's
source, it does not.

Asserting "fair use" of an image is a nuanced legal concept that many
editors cannot grasp so I feel something is needed to help rectify the
situation.

--Guy  (User:Wgfinley)


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

Re: Fair use images

Michael R. Irwin
In reply to this post by W. Guy Finley

>It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is
>meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go.  It
>shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the
>perception.
>  
>
I agree strongly with the above argument.

lazyquasar


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

Re: Fair use images

Michael R. Irwin
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 3/8/06, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hoi,
>>Your plea is not well targeted. Commons our principal resource for the
>>storage of media does not allow for "fair use" images. You describe a
>>problem that is different depending what resource you target, many
>>projects have different rules as to "fair use". The rules of new and
>>the existence of "fair use" material differ as well. These rules have
>>changed over time consequently pictures that complied with the rules
>>at that time would not comply anymore.
>>    
>>
So I guess the need for some kind of targetted rules based ecp or
workflow modification review is emerging?

This can possibly be prototyped manually via procedures before beginning
the mind boggling programming and adminstrative challenge of upgrading
or shifting the entire knowledge base to the new system.   Wikiversity
is a good place for prototyping because it is new and emerging and as
soon as we get approvel from the Board for separate xx.wikiverity.org
knowledge base namespaces we will be faced with transition to the
initial agreed environment within a knowledge base creeping
incrementally toward the Wikibooks host mandated guidlines.

If anyone is interested I can review some U.S. mil-stds to see if there
is applicable material that might provide insight or I can step up my
recruiting efforts for experience field or grid engineer and
technicians.  These people do a range of stuff  (manual ... to self
aware self adaptive software) and could show us while setting up their
field/discpline/company/guild/association useful training materials.  
Obviously the free developers and wiki administrators would still have
final say so and responsibility because I am finding these people in
fields I have cited are typically very busy in demand experts.  They
will assist with volunteered effort on a prioritized basis but initial
effects will be slow and accelerate only at a glacial pace as we begin
to refine our research issues and effective prototyping and operational
methods.

I will be offline for a couple of weeks.  So this is a perfect example
of calender impacts from localized space/time/life events.  I realize
everyone is unique in their interface with our unique knowledge pages.  
I am happy to see significant progess being made in all steps of the
initially identified requirements.

lazyquasar

lazyquasar

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

Re: Fair use images

Michael R. Irwin
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 3/9/06, Anthony DiPierro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Absolutely.  Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing
>>CC-BY-ND.  I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make
>>such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights
>>in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better
>>than relying on fair use.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't agree at all.  Our goal is to make a free content
>encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost.  ND
>content is not free.
>
>We can broadly split media we would like to include in Wikipedia into
>two classes: Illustrations and other media and used to explain or
>decorate our articles, and excerpts of works which we have included in
>order to discuss the works.
>
>In the first case, barring certain silly corner cases, it is always
>possible to have a free version because a Wikipedia contributor could
>create one.
>
>In the second case, a replacement is simply not possible because the
>replacement wouldn't be the work we were discussing.  So, our ability
>to obtain a free copy is entirely at the whim of the copyright holder,
>and in some cases it may even be very difficult for us to contact the
>copyright holder.
>
>Fair use law (and similar constructs in some other countries) exists
>specifically for the second case. The goal of fair use is to prevent
>copyright from completely stifling criticism and intellectual
>discussion.
>
>It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain
>fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on
>Wikipedia. Furthermore, the decision to include fair use is almost
>always a choice between the fair use image and no image at all.   Our
>choice with fair use content is to allow it, where it is easy for
>downstream users to remove, or have nothing at all.  A downstream user
>who can't accept unfree content is in the same position either way.
>Nothing is lost by allowing clear and legitimate fair use, and our
>goal of being an encyclopedia is enhanced in a way which is pretty
>much not possible without fair use.
>
>By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three
>possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free
>enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free
>content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense
>of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content
>will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision.
>
>  
>
>>Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced
>>to release their image under the license.  But right now it's not even
>>an option.
>>    
>>
>
>Who are you expecting to convince?   The impact on the real commercial
>value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND
>licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not
>sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution.
>
>The lack of ND images has, no doubt, cost us some images on the short
>term... but we could equally say that our failure to illegally copy
>current edition Britannica articles has also cost us some level of
>coverage.  Fundamentally if someone isn't interested in creating a
>*free* encyclopedia then they aren't interested in helping us.   Yes,
>we'll sometimes include the copyrighted works of others... but with
>fair use we can do that whether they like it or not.
>
>It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content.
>
>The loss of natural freedom in the embodiment of ideas has been a huge
>burden on our civilization, at least since computing put publication
>in the hands of almost every person. This burden will continue until
>we unify to remove it; It will continue until we create enough free
>content that the artificial social and economic imposition created by
>copyright is longer an impediment to the flow of knowledge to the
>people who want and need it most.
>
>This isn't going to happen quickly, but it can't happen at all if we
>compromise unnecessarily.
>
>We can afford to wait:
>  Wikipedia is forever.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>  
>
I have to study the creative license more carefully before I fully
understand the argument underway above but I currently tend to agree
with Gregory Maxwell in spades for Wikiversity.   That debate is
curently starting to intensify as Wikibooks community gets more adamant
about mandating universeral standards for our temporary prototyping
space that looks downright restrictive of potential learning processes
and materials.

We may need to allow Wikivsersity to stratify and use redundant data
under different licenses to keep confusion to a minimum among students
and non legal specialists.  Obviously we will need to implement some
grid technologies so the exponential curves accelerated by assistance
from Wikipedia's obvious existence and success (nothing shuts up a
naysayer like an existing freight train roaring through the station
every few minutes in the background .... our train can never get started
leavi .... SWOOSH!

I have limited time and energy at moment but if the argument becomes
pandemic we can check some archives for dire predictions early in
Wikipedia's uncertain future when large numbers of regular contributors
often despaired of ever attracting sufficient non trollish newcomers to
keep the database useful enough to attract the labor to polish it up.

So far, so good.  You wikipedians did a helluva job prototyping my
future free engineer projects for me.  I thank you one and all, and yes,
even good cop godling and bad copy screecher.

Could we have some public feedback regarding en.wikiversity.org now or
shall we recruit a gullible software developer to acquire enough trusted
status to add our namespace?   Pesonally I suspect we can have
en.wikiversity.org link operational within 12-14 months, just in time
for some serious ribbon cutting on crude course outlines interesting to
active students worldwide.

MFinney (fire school developer at Wikiversity) has suggested and I may
eventually agree that we may need to join the formal committee process
now being established.   I personally will not participate in the
committee as a formal member as I can identify no rational delegation of
sovereignty under any ideology I am capable currently of integrating my
view of the universe as self evidently the allmighty.

Since only the senior projects seem of concern to anyone at the
foundation or the board level, I would like to note that an abandonment
of the fire school would likely greatly slow and reduce the available
technical expertise applicable to improving and keeping Wikipedia's fire
related terms, discusssions, etc. etc. accurate and useful to the
general public.

lazyquasar


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123