< David Strauss wrote:
> Not only do I agree, but I believe a similar issue surrounds fair use.
> Accusations of U.S. centrism are indefensible when they're based on
> restrictive laws in non-U.S. countries.
>
> Now, that doesn't mean there aren't practical advantages to
> accommodating other countries' needs, but the lack of doing so is hardly
> "U.S. centrism."
You see, when we decided to accept images "used with permission" and or with the NC clause, it was done for the very same reasons on en.wiki copyrighted material is used claiming fair use. This is our workaround for not being able to claim fair use, in fact, you will notice that there are cases in which the same image appears on en.wiki with the fair use template and on it.wiki with the "used with permission" or NC template.
That's the reason why, when we are told we should remove those images, but on en.wiki fair use is just ok, people get pissed and obviously talks about U.S. centrism.
In this thread someone said that renounce to fair use would be an intollerable limitation to the freedom of speech. The way we use NC and "used with permission" images is by any respect equivalent to the way you use copyrighted material claiming fair use.
So in the end having to phase out those images, for us, is an intollerable limitation to our freedom of speech.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada12feb07
Kat Walsh said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Import…
" 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".
Wikimedia's logos are copyrighted and trademarked.
Notwithstanding this, the logos have been placed on a
large number of pages under circumstances where other
copyrighted works would never be used. Often this is
done simply for identification (e.g. this page is
about Wikipedia, so it has the Wikipedia logo), and
other times it is done for what might be called
promotional reasons. Most such uses undoubtedly occur
without any direct input from the Foundation.
For examples, see the links on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.pnghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png
In addition, any image that incorporates a Wikimedia
logo has generally been marked "Copyright by
Wikimedia", regardless of the image's immediate
author:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimediahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
Some of these have apparently been created by
Wikipedians specifically to promote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttonshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_promotion
Recently, one of these promotional
banners(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg)
was deleted (and now temporarily undeleted, subject to
deletion review) essentially for violating Wikipedia's
rules on the use of copyrighted works. (Or in other
words, because it was a copyrighted image not being
used in an article.)
Now many of us believe that there could reasonably be
an exception to Wikipedia's copyright rules when it
comes to images owned by Wikimedia itself, especially
if they serve a useful purpose like promoting
Wikipedia. However, because of the unique role that
the logos play in the visual identity of Wikipedia, I
wanted to come here and get guidance from the
Foundation about what constitutes acceptable use. I
would appreciate it if people would review the
materials on the pages linked above and give some
direction on when logos can be incorporated in other
images and what kinds of pages they might reasonably
be used on. In particular, are promotional tools like
banners and the like acceptable?
-Robert Rohde
aka Dragons_flight on EN
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
> Teofilo Folengo wrote:
> Until now, the scarce contemporary art articles featuring illustrations at
> all on the French Wikipedia have been those using
> permissions-to-Wikipedia-only, for example :
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Prisu
>
>
> Supposing that permission images will no longer be allowed on any Wikimedia
> project worldwide, how can we illustrate such articles, in the case of
> artists whose art is a way of earning a living and who are therefore
> unlikely to suscribe CC-BY-SA or GFDL licences ?
>
> A user who wrote an article on Contemporary African Art says he is in touch
> with African artists and able to take pictures. He asks what sort of
> agreement should be made with the artists before publishing on Wikipedia :
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro_multim%C3%A9dia/semai…
>
> What should I answer him ?
Tell him that if the licence is not GFDL compliant, some will claim fair use on the images, the others will simply have to remove them.
No, sorry, tell him to wait for the annoncement of WMF on allowed licenses on our project, that we all are eager to see.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada11feb07
Until now, the scarce contemporary art articles featuring illustrations at
all on the French Wikipedia have been those using
permissions-to-Wikipedia-only, for example :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Prisu
Supposing that permission images will no longer be allowed on any Wikimedia
project worldwide, how can we illustrate such articles, in the case of
artists whose art is a way of earning a living and who are therefore
unlikely to suscribe CC-BY-SA or GFDL licences ?
A user who wrote an article on Contemporary African Art says he is in touch
with African artists and able to take pictures. He asks what sort of
agreement should be made with the artists before publishing on Wikipedia :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro_multim%C3%A9dia/semai…
What should I answer him ?
Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And I'm sorry to say that again: the italian community is the only
> one to be affected by this decision, 'cause nothing will change for
> en.wiki.
> Here again, Foundation is en.centric...
Nothing will change for en.wiki? Hardly. If I'm reading this
correctly, most of the images used under a claim of "fair use" are no
longer allowed, and we'll need to figure out how to delete some
200,000 images, as well as how to educate thousands of users who are
used to uploading those sorts of images.
Further, it may disallow images that are public domain because they
were published in the United States prior to 1923: such images are
extremely common on en.wiki because "published before 1923" is much
easier to determine than "author died before 1936".
--
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]
I am setting up an on-line Cherokee Language class that describes the
structure, syntax, and methods for converting English articles into the
Cherokee Language to open up the Cherokee Wikipedia to more interested
editors. I have received numerous requests from other Wikipedia editors
and admins on creating such a class. Since the rules of Wikipedia
prohibit using the Wiki's themselves for such content, I will host the
classes, tests, and instruction lessons on wikigadugi.org.
I am faced with two possible paths to make the Cherokee Wikipedia
successful. Be a big fish in a small pond, or try to make the pond
bigger by raising all ships at the same time. I am choosing the later
approach and will try to instill competence in the language with
interested editors. There are a lot of Cherokee people who have
varying degrees of competence in the language, and the solution is to
instill greater awareness in the language and teach and transfer the
knowledge to others.
The basic tools for machine assisted translation are also completed. We
now have a version of squid that translates all browsed web content into
the Cherokee Language. I will be enabling this translating proxy at
wikigadugi to allow editors to assist in translating content for the
Cherokee Wikipedia. I will have materials completed and online sometime
in March, and will begin the classes. To sign up for classes, create an
account on the Cherokee Wikipedia and I will post a page there for class
signup for those interested in learning to speak and write in Cherokee.
Wado
donada gohvi.
Jeff
On 2/9/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Tell me anything but don't tell me that fair-use can be used for this
> that and the rest and that it's not so bad, after all. (at least, this
> is what I repreatedly hear, this manichean speech that says ND/NC and
> permission are EVIL, fair use is LESS EVIL). Don't even hint at it.
I don't really like to use the word "evil." What I want to communicate
is that the liberation of culture is a process, not a state. Within
that process, it may be acceptable to make temporary concessions to
reality -- until we have changed that reality.
The questions we should ask, I think, are the following:
1) How can we make the division between free and non-free clearer?
2) How can we encourage the liberation of non-free works?
3) Are there works which we can never hope to liberate, at least not
under the existing paradigm of freedom?
4) What concessions can and should we make for different language projects?
Here are some thoughts on each of these questions:
1) Making the division clearer. One way to do so would be to caption
every image that is used under an exemption doctrine with a notice to
that effect, e.g. "Copyright (C) XYZ. Used under fair use. [[About
fair use in Wikipedia]]" That latter link could explain our policies,
our desire for replacements, and the general free culture philosophy
underlying this framework.
Another method is to completely phase out local image uploads for
anything _but_ materials used under an exemption doctrine policy
(EDP). This is what we have done on English Wikinews from the start
and one the Polish Wikinews for some time. The upload link says
"Upload fair use media"; another link says "Upload free media" and
points to Commons. This makes editors more aware of the difference,
and makes it easier to patrol fair use uploads. Right now, the
perception is often "Commons is for stuff I want to use in other
projects," which is of course only half the truth.
For new projects, it may also make sense to disable local uploads by
default, until the project has established an EDP. We did this on
Wikinews for a while, though I think the process has fallen behind a
bit. This would ensure that the initial community is required to
"grok" the division before it can start using non-free materials.
Some liberation is a matter of government policy. It seems still
absurd to me that anything funded with taxpayer money should be
copyrighted at all. While even the US policy on this could be more
liberal, it is internationally among the most progressive. We
non-Americans have to admit in this one instance: our governments
suck. Where they do make government materials available, it is usually
under some restrictions -- non-commercial, educational, etc. This is a
policy we need to work to change. Perhaps the chapters can play a role
in this process.
Let us also not forget the issue of copyright terms. Imagine the
fringe role fair use would play if copyright lasted 14 years --
thousands and thousands of current fair use materials would be in the
public domain. The impact on global culture and knowledge distribution
would be magnitudes greater still; it would be the most significant
cultural liberation in the history of humanity. This is by no means an
impossible goal. It is simply a political decision we need to advocate
-- together with the rest of the free culture movement.
2) Liberation of non-free works. For many pictures, liberating them
will be a matter of paying a certain amount to the copyright holder.
So perhaps what is needed is a Content Liberation Group, either a
point of contact within WMF, or a separate non-profit which seeks to
raise funds to free existing works. I would favor the second option,
as it could then be generalized to non-free software, and other works
which are not as relevant to us.
Such a CLG could also systematically contact copyright holders of
works which are no longer financially relevant. It could develop tools
that make this process efficient and scalable. As Board member, I
would be in favor of the WMF bootstrapping such a thing, even if it
becomes a separate organization.
3) The permanently non-free. Here I'm not referring to Mickey Mouse.
Mickey is non-free, but it could theoretically be bought, or its
copyright could expire (it would have if not for Disney's purchase of
politicians to prevent it from happening). One example I can think of
are identifying images, i.e. logos, coats of arms, seals, and so on.
There is often a legitimate desire to prevent misuse of these images,
and copyright and trademark law can help to prevent that. Moreover,
there is often a strong commercial _incentive_ to misuse them: many of
them are highly valuable.
Even Wikimedia does not put its logos under an existing free license.
I don't like the Debian approach of using two logos much because it
tends to lead to either confusion or dominance of one over the other
(who even knows the non-free Debian logo?). And this is one instance
where there has been infighting within the free culture movement --
Debian shouting at Mozilla and vice versa. A Firefox fork named
Iceweasel. Silliness.
I think we may have to sit down with the CC folks, the FSF, Debian,
and other stakeholders and try to develop an "Identifying Works
License" or something like that, a license which grants certain
liberties, as long as the use identifies only the desired entity and
_nothing else_. It might permit modifications if they used only for
commentary and nothing else, and so on. It might even have to make
explicit reference to commercial vs. non-commercial use.
In other words, I think in this single instance -- works which serve
the purpose of identification -- the definition of freedom may need to
be adjusted. If we can come up with something that is significantly
more free than standard copyright, but still protects the interests of
organizations which would use such a license, then we can start
evangelizing that others should make use of it, too. Right now a
strongly negative attitude against copyrighted logos seems a bit
hypocritical.
4) Different language projects. This is a tricky legal problem, and
the Italian Wikipedia is one example. First of all, only to point out
the obvious, a language is not inherently tied to a country. But
languages are of course strongly correlated with geography, and as
such, their use typically falls predominantly within certain national
borders (Esperanto is a nice exception).
Legal caution and protection of our users suggests respecting the laws
where a language is predominantly spoken. As Gregory has pointed out,
we will not do so if these laws are utterly unreasonable. In those
cases, we can fall back to US law and internationally dominant legal
standards. Outside copyright, an exception are censorship laws.
Therefore, the development of Exemption Doctrine Policies must always
be the result of a discussion between WMF and a language community,
with the involvement of chapters where they exist. I think we should
try to streamline that process -- one of many tasks we should discuss
with our general counsel.
- -
I'd like to hear how others would answer these questions. That
Wikimedia is a free culture organization, however, is neither
negotiable nor reversible. Therefore, as long as we accept some
non-free content as a matter of cultural transition, I do believe a
strong and visible division between the two is essential, as is
thoughtful discourse about systematically transitioning from one to
the other.
But most of all, I think we need to focus on the positive message, not
the rules of exclusion. That message is: We are here to transform
civilization, with free knowledge, free software, free science, free
art -- free culture. People should never feel that they are part of
this because these are the rules we set. If that is what we
communicate, then we have failed to share our own enthusiasm and love
for this fantastic idea. As important as policy is, let's never stop
speaking about freedom.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Pedro Sanchez wrote on Thu Feb 8 20:23:36 UTC 2007:
>I'll try to reword Gregory's argument since I think it's still not
>clear to you (and for what I see, most it: people).
>
>1. On italy, you're allowed to publish with permission but not under fair use.
>2. So you can upload if you get permission
>3. Once the file has been uploaded in italy with permission, USA
people can access it
>4. Should the cirterion met, USA people can reuse the content under
fair use (since there,
>fair use applies no matter what the licencing terms are (permission or not))
>
>therefore he's suggesting you to tag your images with the text
>* This image has been published in Italy with permission (not under
nonexistent "italy fair
>use")
>* This image *could* be used on some other countries as fair use
where those countries
>law allow it
>
>Am I right greg? Did I explain it correctly?
Yes, although I should make sure to be really clear. (2) is only okay
if (4) would be possible. The reason for this is that we want the
material submitted to itwikis to be maximally free in the rest of the
world. Itwiki is used far outside of Italy... Even 15% of its edits
come from outside Italy.
We don't care about only the US, we also care about the whole world..
Countries that I believe have explicit law similar in intent to fair
use include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Germany,
Hungary, Japan, Poland, Sweeden, United Kingdom.. and pretty much
every place that was at one point a UK holding. Of course, it's also
the case that it exists in Italian law too, but people here are
insisting that it only applies to text. This doesn't appear to be the
case to me, but I will not argue.
I think that is far too much smoke here for such a small amount of
fire. On itwiki the images impacted by this seem to be mostly tagged
with {{Copyrighted}}. If we look at the whatlinkshere
(http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:PuntanoQui/Template:Copy…)
we find that there are less than 2,000 images in this state. Is all
this concern from itwiki really just about 2,000 images or are there
several other templates that I am missing?
In any case, if you go through these images you will find many images
that anyone could take, public buildings and such. You will also find
many images created by Italian Wikipedians who are deciding to not
release their work under a free license. This is a terrible thing,
and it's deeply troubling that anyone thought that these images were
ever okay.
Greg said:
> The ESA has chosen a copyright policy which limits the freedom the
> world can take with work, presumably they have good reasons for this,
> but their decisions have negative consequences as well. One of those
> negative consequences is a reduction in how widespread information of
> their work can travel, and Wikipedia is just a single symptom of that.
Fine with me, but the same is true of museums or heirs of artists who chose not
to allow free reproductions of their works of art.
There cannot be two rules, two measures. One of the negative consequences,
for an artist, the heirs thereof, or museums or libraries or whatever owning
rights to the works, of not allowing free photographs, is to reduce exposure
of these works to the world, and thus deprive themselves of a kind of
advertisement on a site in the first pages of Google. They'll have to assume that.
Thus, again: Why that exemption for so-called "modern art"?
){kind=link}