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

Ray Saintonge
W. Guy Finley wrote:

>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.
>>    
>>
>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.  
>
I absolutely agree that those individuals do not understand what fair
use is.

>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.
>
Why should it be a voting matter?  My argument was to provide adequate
time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their
efforts  are correct.  If within that adequate time they can do not
bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend
on a vote to save them.

>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.
>
Agreed.

>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.
>
The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in
legal interpretations by the courts.  I'm very much in favour of using
fair use material, but it must be real fair use.

Ec

_______________________________________________
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 W. Guy Finley
On 3/12/06, W. Guy Finley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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)
>

There's far too much of a focus on what's legal and what isn't, and
far too little focus on what's free and what isn't.

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 3/13/06 1:56 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> 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.
>>
> Why should it be a voting matter?  My argument was to provide adequate
> time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their
> efforts  are correct.  If within that adequate time they can do not
> bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend
> on a vote to save them.
>

Nope, I agree totally but that's the procedure now.  When I deviated from
that I endured an assault from several editors and even an admin for
deleting images "out of process".


>> 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.
>>
> Agreed.
>
>> 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.
>>
> The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in
> legal interpretations by the courts.  I'm very much in favour of using
> fair use material, but it must be real fair use.
>
> Ec

Totally agree again -- it's a tough issue even for lawyers.  I was thinking
the best solution is to come up with a Fair Use review panel, made up of a
lawyer or two if we can get one, a couple of well respected editors and
maybe even someone to represent the Foundation since it's protecting the
Foundation from exposure to liability that is the heart of all of this.
This panel would regularly review Fair Use policy and disputes in an effort
to maintain a coherent position on them.  Just my initial thought on it.

--Guy  (EN 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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 3/12/06, W. Guy Finley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>There's far too much of a focus on what's legal and what isn't, and
>far too little focus on what's free and what isn't.
>
You can't separate the two.  If it was perfectly legal in copyright law
for anybody to upload anything we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ec

_______________________________________________
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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by W. Guy Finley
W. Guy Finley wrote:

>On 3/13/06 1:56 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>>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.
>>>      
>>>
>>Why should it be a voting matter?  My argument was to provide adequate
>>time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their
>>efforts  are correct.  If within that adequate time they can do not
>>bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend
>>on a vote to save them.
>>    
>>
>Nope, I agree totally but that's the procedure now.  When I deviated from
>that I endured an assault from several editors and even an admin for
>deleting images "out of process".
>
Sigh! :-(

>>>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.
>>>      
>>>
>>The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in
>>legal interpretations by the courts.  I'm very much in favour of using
>>fair use material, but it must be real fair use.
>>    
>>
>Totally agree again -- it's a tough issue even for lawyers.  I was thinking
>the best solution is to come up with a Fair Use review panel, made up of a
>lawyer or two if we can get one, a couple of well respected editors and
>maybe even someone to represent the Foundation since it's protecting the
>Foundation from exposure to liability that is the heart of all of this.
>This panel would regularly review Fair Use policy and disputes in an effort
>to maintain a coherent position on them.  Just my initial thought on it.
>
Such a panel would be an interesting  idea..  Having a lawyer sitting
regularly on such a body might be a bit much to ask; he may find the
workload offputting, especially in the early stages of such a
committee.  Advising the committee could be a more realistic role.  Some
of the issues that come up before such a committee are likely to be
repetitious.

There is an important maxim in law that justice must not only be done
but must also be seen to be done.  A peremptory deletion of an obvious
copyvio fulfills the first part of that, but not the second.  Voting
turns this sort of process into a farce.  Perhaps those voters can be
said to form a jury of sorts, but in a regular jury system juries are
asked to make determinations of fact, not of law.  For justice to be
seen to be done the defending editor needs to feel that he is not at the
mercy of any single individual making a unilateral interpretation and
enforcement of the rules.  He needs to be given the opportunity to
respond within a reasonable time, and to feel that his response will be
given serious and fair consideration.

If the nuances are tough for lawyers, I can't see how voters who may
never have read any copyright statue can fare any better.

Ec

_______________________________________________
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 Ray Saintonge
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 3/12/06, W. Guy Finley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >There's far too much of a focus on what's legal and what isn't, and
> >far too little focus on what's free and what isn't.
> >
> You can't separate the two.  If it was perfectly legal in copyright law
> for anybody to upload anything we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As long as it remains illegal for others to redistribute that which
was uploaded, we still would.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123