[Wikipedia-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikipedia-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux-2
Kat Walsh said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Important_notice_regarding_fair_use_that_all_administrators_should_see

" There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and
significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be
released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in
an educational context without including the media itself. "


I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in
order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a
photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest
of the article).

To me, these include, among others:
* recent works of art
* military operations and hardware
* spacecraft
(this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).

In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions
(this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures).
However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is
little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we
will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our
photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or
inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.

The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that
we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the
organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't
have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that
makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what
they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.

Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for
precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern
artworks".

I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude
all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is
meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and
similar works.

To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia
is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:
* the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
* the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a
clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a
limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of
the resale price of the works of the artist).
These people can authorize free pictures.

Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the
heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that
declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without
any support from the people whose work we promote.

As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the
Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at
the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us
to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure
whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently
considered himself to be so.)

I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the
extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte
blanche' for "significant modern art".


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

J.L.W.S. The Special One
Sometimes, getting a "free" photograph may be difficult, dangerous, or
even illegal. For example, getting a "free" photograph of some living
celebrities may entail Wikipedians becoming the paparazzi.

If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free
license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not
release my work under a free license either.

Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let
Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by
enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo.
If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.

Wikipedia is over-emphasising freedom, compromising quality in the
process. While I believe in freedom, I believe quality is more
important. The main reason why I don't support free software is that I
find it too ideological, and not pragmatic.

On 2/9/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kat Walsh said:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Important_notice_regarding_fair_use_that_all_administrators_should_see
>
> " There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and
> significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be
> released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in
> an educational context without including the media itself. "
>
>
> I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in
> order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a
> photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest
> of the article).
>
> To me, these include, among others:
> * recent works of art
> * military operations and hardware
> * spacecraft
> (this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).
>
> In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions
> (this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures).
> However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is
> little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we
> will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our
> photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or
> inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.
>
> The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that
> we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the
> organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't
> have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that
> makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what
> they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.
>
> Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for
> precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern
> artworks".
>
> I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude
> all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is
> meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and
> similar works.
>
> To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia
> is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:
> * the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
> * the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a
> clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a
> limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of
> the resale price of the works of the artist).
> These people can authorize free pictures.
>
> Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the
> heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that
> declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without
> any support from the people whose work we promote.
>
> As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the
> Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at
> the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us
> to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure
> whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently
> considered himself to be so.)
>
> I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the
> extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte
> blanche' for "significant modern art".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
Written with passion,
J.L.W.S. The Special One

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Rich Holton
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:

> Sometimes, getting a "free" photograph may be difficult, dangerous, or
> even illegal. For example, getting a "free" photograph of some living
> celebrities may entail Wikipedians becoming the paparazzi.
>
> If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free
> license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not
> release my work under a free license either.
>
> Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let
> Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by
> enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo.
> If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
> work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.
>
> Wikipedia is over-emphasising freedom, compromising quality in the
> process. While I believe in freedom, I believe quality is more
> important. The main reason why I don't support free software is that I
> find it too ideological, and not pragmatic.
>

Honestly trying not to write a flame, or be overly dismissive of your
views, I still would suggest that your beliefs in this regard are not
consistent with the dominant ethos on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. You truly
may be more comfortable working on a different sort of project.

It's also true that the ethos of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is quite different
from the ethos of capitalism and much of the (at least western) world.
It is clear that, in many ways, Wikipedia is about changing a part of
the dominant ethos.

For me, the quality of Wikipedia is directly related to the freeness of
it. If John Q. Celeb does not want to have any free photograph of him on
Wikipedia, then I'd much rather not have any photo of him. Even if he
wins 10 Academy Awards. (Of course, if he wins 10 Academy Awards,
chances are there's some free photo of him somewhere). We want to change
the ethos such that John Q. Celeb *wants* to release a free image.
Certainly part of celebrity is being made fun of.

-Rich


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Brad Patrick
Be creative.  Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia.  Have you
tried asking them for a free image?


On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> > Sometimes, getting a "free" photograph may be difficult, dangerous, or
> > even illegal. For example, getting a "free" photograph of some living
> > celebrities may entail Wikipedians becoming the paparazzi.
> >
> > If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free
> > license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not
> > release my work under a free license either.
> >
> > Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let
> > Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by
> > enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo.
> > If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
> > work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.
> >
> > Wikipedia is over-emphasising freedom, compromising quality in the
> > process. While I believe in freedom, I believe quality is more
> > important. The main reason why I don't support free software is that I
> > find it too ideological, and not pragmatic.
> >
>
> Honestly trying not to write a flame, or be overly dismissive of your
> views, I still would suggest that your beliefs in this regard are not
> consistent with the dominant ethos on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. You truly
> may be more comfortable working on a different sort of project.
>
> It's also true that the ethos of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is quite different
> from the ethos of capitalism and much of the (at least western) world.
> It is clear that, in many ways, Wikipedia is about changing a part of
> the dominant ethos.
>
> For me, the quality of Wikipedia is directly related to the freeness of
> it. If John Q. Celeb does not want to have any free photograph of him on
> Wikipedia, then I'd much rather not have any photo of him. Even if he
> wins 10 Academy Awards. (Of course, if he wins 10 Academy Awards,
> chances are there's some free photo of him somewhere). We want to change
> the ethos such that John Q. Celeb *wants* to release a free image.
> Certainly part of celebrity is being made fun of.
>
> -Rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>



--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Rich Holton
Brad Patrick wrote:
> Be creative.  Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia.  Have you
> tried asking them for a free image?
>

Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia,
  any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.

Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living
people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust,
with "No free image available" written in bold letters.

Essentially, try to create a situation in which not having a free image
available for Wikipedia is seen as a detriment to one's career.

-Rich

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Gerard-2
On 09/02/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living
> people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust,
> with "No free image available" written in bold letters.


PERFECT!


- d.

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Artur Fijałkowski
2007/2/9, David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>
> On 09/02/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living
> > people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust,
> > with "No free image available" written in bold letters.


Remember that even if I (or anyone else)  agree for distribution of photos
of myself it doesn't mean that I resign from protection of my image. Eg. PD
photo of me cannot be used in advertisement of condoms without my permission
although it's PD ;)

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Platonides
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
> work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.

If you put a free license on some of your photos and 145889 people
downloaded and shared it, you would have 145889 people knowing about
you, and knowing that you make great photos -> they may hire you.


Note that:
a) We're not saying you should publich *all* your work. If you have 20
photos of John Doe, you can publish one low-quality and sell the other 19.

b) People copying your photos will get even less profit, as they will
have to acknowledge you were the author (i assume at least a Attribution
License).

c) If your work is bad. There's very little licenses can do to make you
earn more money.


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
On 09/02/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free
> license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not
> release my work under a free license either.
>
> Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let
> Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by
> enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo.

Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
copyright or not.

And malicious vandals usually don't give a damn about the legal status
of the work they're chopping around...

> If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
> work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.

There are a few professional and semi-professional photographers who
have released work under a free license - have a look at Towpilot's
work on Commons, where what he's doing is releasing a load of
freelance photos he made of Hollywood stars on promotional tours in
the 70s/80s. The market he took these for no longer exists - he can't
really flog them to Scandinavian entertainment magazines twenty years
on! - and they're of no real economic value to him now; sure, he might
be able to sell one or two for a biography or a retrospective, but who
would hunt him down to find them?

It's also advertising - you're releasing photos, there is the promise
of more to come, of other (better?) images you still have on the
market. They're attributed, so your name continues with them; an
interested reuser can always contact you.

And, pragmatically, a lot of reusers don't want to deal with open
licenses or the like - they want what they understand, which is a
clear license for a specific use from the copyright holder, for which
they are willing to pay. There are a few people who make a small but
comfortable amount from people finding their freely-licensed images on
Commons and then paying to use them...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by J.L.W.S. The Special One
Hoi,
It is a good thing that Wikipedia is Free content right .. Free Software
is this stuff that these developer dudes spend their time on. Not
something for you then... It is a good thing that our developers are
quite pragmatic.. they help us make the Internet suck less .. It still
sucks, but thanks to them it sucks nicely.
Thanks,
    GerardM

J.L.W.S. The Special One schreef:

> Sometimes, getting a "free" photograph may be difficult, dangerous, or
> even illegal. For example, getting a "free" photograph of some living
> celebrities may entail Wikipedians becoming the paparazzi.
>
> If I were a celebrity, I would not release my photo under a free
> license. If I were a professional photographer or artist, I would not
> release my work under a free license either.
>
> Why? Imagine Fiona Xie releasing her photo under a free license to let
> Wikipedia use it, and a nasty vandal creating a derivative work by
> enlarging the size of her boobs, and publishing the derivative photo.
> If I were a professional photographer or artist, and I released my
> work under a free license, I wouldn't be able to earn a living.
>
> Wikipedia is over-emphasising freedom, compromising quality in the
> process. While I believe in freedom, I believe quality is more
> important. The main reason why I don't support free software is that I
> find it too ideological, and not pragmatic.
>
> On 2/9/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Kat Walsh said:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Important_notice_regarding_fair_use_that_all_administrators_should_see
>>
>> " There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and
>> significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be
>> released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in
>> an educational context without including the media itself. "
>>
>>
>> I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in
>> order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a
>> photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest
>> of the article).
>>
>> To me, these include, among others:
>> * recent works of art
>> * military operations and hardware
>> * spacecraft
>> (this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).
>>
>> In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions
>> (this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures).
>> However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is
>> little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we
>> will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our
>> photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or
>> inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.
>>
>> The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that
>> we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the
>> organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't
>> have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that
>> makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what
>> they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.
>>
>> Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for
>> precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern
>> artworks".
>>
>> I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude
>> all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is
>> meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and
>> similar works.
>>
>> To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia
>> is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:
>> * the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
>> * the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a
>> clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a
>> limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of
>> the resale price of the works of the artist).
>> These people can authorize free pictures.
>>
>> Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the
>> heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that
>> declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without
>> any support from the people whose work we promote.
>>
>> As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the
>> Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at
>> the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us
>> to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure
>> whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently
>> considered himself to be so.)
>>
>> I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the
>> extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte
>> blanche' for "significant modern art".


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
On 10/02/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Brad Patrick wrote:
> > Be creative.  Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia.  Have you
> > tried asking them for a free image?
> >
>
> Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia,
>   any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.
>
> Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living
> people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust,
> with "No free image available" written in bold letters.

That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already.
Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get
uploaded for image-free biographies, too.

Go forth!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Goodman
This discussion has forgotten about one of the traditional media that
work very well with computer based systems: drawing. A public figure
can try to prevent himself from being photographed except under terms
he dictates, but he can not (at least in the US) prevent  an artist
from drawing or painting him based on whatever images are available,
in any way the artist may please, fair or unfair, characteristic or
satyrical, and publishing it as desired--as long as it is not an
actual reproduction of the original.

Similarly for technical subjects. If i should see an object, I can
draw it from memory. If it should be described to me, I can draw it
based on the description. I can't use it to pass off a copy as the
original, but otherwise the image is my own property , and if i should
want to put it into the public domain, the subject or owner has no
recourse. Among the publications making effective use of this
technique is the New Yorker. Many nonfiction books are therefore
illustrated by drawings, and so can parts of WP.

This does not hold for every possible circumstance--there remains a
right of private figures  to privacy. In Europe, there are I believe
some further restrictions. Governments can seek to prohibit verbal or
visual descriptions of whatever they may choose. There is obscenity in
drawing as well as in photographs--as cartoons make obvious.

But there is a very wide range here, at WP so far makes use of very
little of it.-DGG


On 2/9/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/02/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Brad Patrick wrote:
> > > Be creative.  Celebrities are people too, and they love Wikipedia.  Have you
> > > tried asking them for a free image?
> > >
> >
> > Right. It's very possible that, with the continuing growth of Wikipedia,
> >   any up-and-coming celebrity would be eager to have a free image shown.
> >
> > Maybe we should start using some sort of place-holder image for living
> > people without free images. It could show a typical generic shadow bust,
> > with "No free image available" written in bold letters.
>
> That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already.
> Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get
> uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
>
> Go forth!
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Platonides
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:

> That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already.
> Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get
> uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
>
> Go forth!
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_man_%28en%29.svg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:No_free_image_woman_%28en%29.svg
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise

We had some of this kind on other languages: [[Image:Falta.svg]]


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux-2
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher a écrit :
> That's a fantastic idea that I can't believe we haven't done already.
> Hopefully it might also reduce the dodgy copyrighted images that get
> uploaded for image-free biographies, too.
This had been discussed on the Wikipedia in French, about for instance
building and works of art with no free photographs (I was the one
proposing it, if I remember correctly). I had been told that this was a
bit "aggressive". Maybe the times are a-changing?

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

David Monniaux-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
Andrew Gray a écrit :
> Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
> your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
> the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
> copyright or not.
Actually, it is.

Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree
licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use
more effectively than through trademark law solely.

Some European government agencies do the same: they copyright their
photos and make them available under "unfree" licenses because they fear
that free licenses may hinder their ability to prevent people from using
them in inappropriate ways (read here: advertisements that appear to
make them endorse stuff).

*** Before dismissing these fears as unfounded, please note that the
Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that. ***

The US government enacted legislation that expressly punishes using
government symbols without proper organization; but this legislation
happens to be outside copyright law. Apparently, some European agencies
don't enjoy that kind of protection, thus their attachment to copyright.


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Rich Holton
David Monniaux wrote:

> Andrew Gray a écrit :
>> Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
>> your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
>> the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
>> copyright or not.
> Actually, it is.
>
> Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree
> licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use
> more effectively than through trademark law solely.
>
> Some European government agencies do the same: they copyright their
> photos and make them available under "unfree" licenses because they fear
> that free licenses may hinder their ability to prevent people from using
> them in inappropriate ways (read here: advertisements that appear to
> make them endorse stuff).
>
> *** Before dismissing these fears as unfounded, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation does exactly that. ***
>
> The US government enacted legislation that expressly punishes using
> government symbols without proper organization; but this legislation
> happens to be outside copyright law. Apparently, some European agencies
> don't enjoy that kind of protection, thus their attachment to copyright.
>

I think you'll find that Andrew was using "your image" to mean "your
visage" or "your likeness", or "your face". Not "your electronically
stored graphic".

-Rich

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by David Monniaux-2
On 10/02/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew Gray a écrit :
> > Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
> > your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
> > the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
> > copyright or not.
> Actually, it is.
>
> Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree
> licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use
> more effectively than through trademark law solely.

Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the
image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation
of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the
workarounds...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Mark
Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 10/02/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Andrew Gray a écrit :
>>    
>>> Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
>>> your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
>>> the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
>>> copyright or not.
>>>      
>> Actually, it is.
>>
>> Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree
>> licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use
>> more effectively than through trademark law solely.
>>    
>
> Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the
> image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation
> of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the
> workarounds...
>  

Though even there it's not clear that the workarounds are necessary or
beneficial.  Sun recently freely licensed the copyright on their Java
mascot ("Duke"), and is controlling use exclusively through the
trademark that they retain on it.  Mozilla, meanwhile, has been famously
tightfisted with their Firefox logo, and it has led to a great deal of
rancor within the open-source/free-software community, arguably
outweighing any benefit they've gained from that control.

-Mark


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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Gerard Meijssen-3
Delirium schreef:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>  
>> On 10/02/07, David Monniaux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  
>>    
>>> Andrew Gray a écrit :
>>>    
>>>      
>>>> Bear in mind that copyright is not related to your right not to have
>>>> your image used in a defamatory or misleading manner - whatever rights
>>>> the law gives you in this regard you retain whether you hold the
>>>> copyright or not.
>>>>      
>>>>        
>>> Actually, it is.
>>>
>>> Proof: the Wikimedia Foundation *copyrights* its logos under *unfree
>>> licenses* exactly for that reason: for being able to control their use
>>> more effectively than through trademark law solely.
>>>    
>>>      
>> Sorry, by "your image" here I meant "the photograph of you" (ie, the
>> image in question). Images which aren't a photographic representation
>> of a person don't tend to be covered by these protections, hence the
>> workarounds...
>>  
>>    
>
> Though even there it's not clear that the workarounds are necessary or
> beneficial.  Sun recently freely licensed the copyright on their Java
> mascot ("Duke"), and is controlling use exclusively through the
> trademark that they retain on it.  Mozilla, meanwhile, has been famously
> tightfisted with their Firefox logo, and it has led to a great deal of
> rancor within the open-source/free-software community, arguably
> outweighing any benefit they've gained from that control.
>
> -Mark
Hoi,
There are two sides to the coin. You assume that Mozilla lost out. Maybe
so, but Debian lost most of its credibility in the eyes of many others.
The sheer stupidity of it all is one of the impediments that works
against the uptake of Linux on the desktop. Including my desktop.

Thanks,
    GerardM

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

Re: precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by David Goodman
David Goodman wrote
This discussion has forgotten about one of the traditional media that
work very well with computer based systems: drawing. A public figure
can try to prevent himself from being photographed except under terms
he dictates, but he can not (at least in the US) prevent  an artist
from drawing or painting him based on whatever images are available,
in any way the artist may please, fair or unfair, characteristic or
satyrical, and publishing it as desired--as long as it is not an
actual reproduction of the original.
This worked a treat on our article for the author Jim Butcher. I posted a request for an image on his fan forum and the favourite image turned out to be this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimButcher_sepia.jpg

Surely any author with even a modest fan-base can manage this ;-)

HTH HAND
--
Phil
12