In accordance with the recent discussion on the wikipedia-l mailing list
and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter I have created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
This page serves as a discussion page for debating whether an image or
other file can legitmately be considered fair use, and whether all
alternatives have been exhausted. Images and other files that may be
eligible should not be used until there is consensus on the page to do so;
on the other hand, they should not be deleted until there is consensus
that they are not eligible for fair use.
Image pages that have undergone due process should be tagged with
{{msg:verifieduse}}.
All pages which are currently tagged with {{msg:fairuse}} (many older ones
link to [[fair use]] instead) should undergo due process on this page to
determine whether their status as fair use is justifiable. If so, they
should be tagged with {{msg:verifieduse}} instead, if not, they should be
deleted and efforts should be made to seek free alternatives.
Whenever a previously fair use image is deleted, a link should be added to
[[Wikipedia:Requested pictures]]. Images without any copyright
information should either be deleted or undergo the fair use process.
No newly uploaded images should be tagged with {{msg:fairuse}}.
This post is also cross-posted to the Village pump.
Regards,
Erik
As further material in the current debate, here is the result of a more random
sample of pictures on en:. I used the first 100 pictures in the alphabetical
order starting at 'E'.
A number of pictures have not been counted:
* Wherever the same picture was uploaded twice (in different sizes), it has
been counted only once (those are mostly unproblematic pictures, but on
the other hand some of them contained the copyright information on only one,
and in that case that one has been counted)
* There was a series of 'pictures' containing nothing more than country
names written vertically. These are used in the results of the Eurovision
Song Contest. They have been counted as only one picture.
* Six very simple maps showed the administrative subdivision of East
Sussex. They have been counted as only two pictures.
Extra pictures have been included to make the total come to 100 again.
Of these 100:
57 seemed unproblematic, being either Public domain or GNU/FDL:
* 6 were own photographs by Wikipedians
* 4 were own drawings by Wikipedians
* 8 were presumably own drawings by Wikipedians, but not described as such
* 19 were stated to be US government material
* 3 not so stated clearly were
* 8 were stated to be Public Domain, and were so on account of age
* 4 not so stated also were
* 1 was stated to be free of copyright
* 2 were stated to be from a site, and the site states they are free of
copyright
* 2 were believed by me to be either not copyrightable or copyrighted by the
uploader
16 might have problems:
* 4 claimed to be fair use
* 1 was a sound file; the song is out of copyright, but what about the
recording
* 1 is allowed for non-commercial use only
* 1 is allowed for educational use only
* 1 has permission to be used on Wikipedia, but it is not clear whether this
includes GNU/FDL licensing
* 1 has permission to be used on Wikipedia, but explicitly no permission to
alter or provide for distribution by others
* 7 were logos, flags or coats of arms, which I doubt are copyrightable
27 did not contain any copyright information and did not fall under any of
the previously mentioned categories. Of these 26:
* 1 might be an unmarked own photograph
* 2 might be unmarked own drawings
* 2 are still likely to be public domain from NASA
* 1 might well be uncopyrightable
* I have not made any attempt to seek out to what extent they might be
fair use
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The list:
Own photograph:
ECORAN32.JPG
ECORAN42.JPG (duplicate)
Eastern-Grey-334.jpg
Eastern-Grey-Kangaroo.jpg
Eastern_Reef_Egret.jpg
Eastern_Yellow_Robin.jpg
Own drawing:
ECClines.png
ECexamples01.png (duplicate)
Eadric.png
Ear-anatomy-notext-small.png
Own drawing (not mentioned):
EINF.gif
ESCAustriaJ.png (presumably uncopyrightable)
EUDofCofHere.png
EUnit.gif (duplicate)
EZero.gif (duplicate)
E_with_sharp_and_C_with_b6b_figured_bass.png
EastSussexEastbourne.png
EastSussexNumbered.png
US government material:
E4-CG24Cruising.jpg
EJMcCoy.jpg
ELWilson.jpg
EMK.jpg
ES-3A_Shadow.jpg
E_4b.jpg
E A Behring.jpg (also age)
E_friedman_pic.jpg
Eagle.column1.arp.300pix.jpg
Eagle Horst 1.jpg (probably)
Earth's_atmosphere.jpg
Earth_Night_Small.jpg
EarthquakeFreewayCa1989.jpg
EarthshineDiagram.png
East-timor-map.png
EasternKingbird23.jpg
EasternMeadowlark23.jpg
EasternScreechOwl23.jpg
EasternTowhee23.jpg
US government (not mentioned):
Earth-apollo17.jpg
Earth_am1.jpg
E1-tracer.jpg
Public domain because of age:
ENC 1-NA5 600px.jpeg
ENC SYSTEME FIGURE.jpeg (duplicate)
ENC plate 1-143 300px.jpg (duplicate)
Eagleowl.JPG
Eagleowl.jpg
Eakins.jpg
Eallen.jpg
EarpV.jpg
Public domain because of age (unmentioned):
Eadred.jpg
Eadwig.jpg
Earl of aberdeen.jpg
Earlofhopetoun.jpg
Stated to be free of copyright:
EagleAndChild.jpg
Various copyright-free (unmentioned):
Easter_island_(Chile).jpg
Easter_island_and_south_america.jpg
Either copyright uploader or no problems expected:
Ear-red.png
EastBerlinBoroughs.png
Fair use claimed:
E.W. Bullinger.jpg
EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg (news event)
EarlJones.JPG
EarlineWParmon.JPG
Sound file (see above):
Earlross.ogg
Only allowed for non-commercial use:
E-meter.gif
Only allowed for educational use (Wikipedia is already borderline):
Ear.jpg
Permission received with unknown extent:
ESW-pre1974.png
Permission received without further copying:
EastGreenwichLibrary.jpg
Logo/flag/coat of arms:
EARLlogo.jpg
ESC1956logo.jpg
Eafflag.jpg
East Finland.png
East_Turkestan_flag_large.png
East_timor_coa.png
East_timor_flag_large.png
Possible own photograph:
EJ20030502020.jpg
Possible own drawing:
East_london_line.png
Easternvirucounty.jpg
Possibly NASA:
Earth-mars.jpg
East_Hills_Sol8_L256-A11R1.jpg
Possibly not under copyright law:
Early_cyrillic_alphabet.png
Others unmarked:
E.U._Essien_Udom3.jpg
E803994f3zd.jpeg
EBarak.jpg
EBerlinerGramophoneDisc.png (1)
EEdwardsSmall.jpg
EF140.jpg
ERCIYES1.jpg
E_Cresson.jpg
E_Hurley.jpg
E_coli.JPG
E_coli_o157.JPG
E_juenger.jpg
Eagle closeup small.jpg
Earl_Hines.jpg (2)
Earlepage.jpg
EarlyParlophoneLabel.jpg
East_Week_First_Issue's_Cover_29-10-1992.jpg
East_Week_Re-launched_First_Issue_Cover.jpg
Easter.jpg
Eastern_Curlew.jpg
(1): This one too might be insufficiently artistic to be copyrightable, being
a faithful photograph of a 2-dimensional work out of copyright.
(2): Something seems to have gone wrong here, there is no picture.
Andre Engels
> From: Gareth Owen <wiki () gwowen ! freeserve ! co ! uk>
>>"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" <daniel(a)copyleft.no> writes:
>> It's entirely conceivable that a large country (say France) would
make it
>> illegal to access Wikipedia for its citizens
> A large country has. China's great firewall blocks much of wikipedia.
> We *could* amend it so that its acceptable to the Chinese government.
> We *could* amend it so that its acceptable to the French government.
> Personally, I'm not in favour of that.
I don't want to let this stand without comment. What is your source for
the fact that China "blocks much of wikipedia"?
It is actually quite well know that (astonishingly) China does NOT block
Wikipedia now, and a quick check with zh.wikipedia.org denizens confirms
this. Folks are accessing Wikipedia from Beijing, Guangdong, Shenzhen
and smaller cities/universities inside China.
I'm not a PRC apologist by any means, but let's go with what the facts
bear out.
Andrew Lih
Journalism and Media Studies Centre
University of Hong Kong
Jimbo wrote:
>...
>If that means less images for now, then it means less images
>for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive
>to develop free alternatives.
No it means that many things will *never* have images. For example, Dolly the
Sheep is dead. The only images of her are either from the news media or from
the Roslin Institute. Therefore I used the images from the Roslin Institute.
The license on those images states that they can be freely used in a
noncommercial setting so long as credit is given. I have done that.
What we need is the ability to mark those image pages so that commercial
downstream users can easily exclude them.
I really like the GNU philosophy, but the GNU license is a means to an end.
That end is, at least for me, to create the best encyclopedia on the planet.
And to do that we need to use some noncommercial grant, special permission, and
liberal fair use doctrine images. So IMO, we should officially discourage the
use of these hindered images by encouraging freer alternatives, but we should
not ban them. We should mark them so that non-Wikimedia and/or commercial
downstream users can easily exclude their display in their versions of our
articles.
Text is a different matter since there is no easy way to exclude hindered text
for downstream users. So "fair use" in that regard must be limited to what a
commercial user could do (relatively short and clearly marked and attributed
quotations).
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Summary: Proposal to have separate databases for
userpages, talkpages and articles.
Hello,
I think it would be a good idea to have separate
databases (or downloadable files) for userpages,
talkpages and articles.
Many Wikipedia mirrors copy userpages and
talkpages. I don't like that. It doesn't help to
protect the privacy of Wikipedians.
Having separate databases (or downloadable files)
will help the people who mirror our content to
copy just what they really want (the articles)
and not userpages and talkpages, which may
contain information some Wikipedians (like me)
would prefer be available only on servers
controlled by Wikimedia Foundation.
Please comment, support, oppose, criticise and
inform us about your opinion.
Thank you.
--Optim
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
On [[en:Talk:James Cook]] someone asked for a map of his travels. I could
make such, but I would like to have a map to start from. Are there somewhere
maps available that can be used for cases like this? Would it be an idea to
have a map collection somewhere on Wikipedia to work from?
Andre Engels
Secretlondon and Morwen did a wonderful job trying to get an idea of the
problem. I doubt whether they got a truly representative sample of
images on Wikipedia, nor did they claim to, but obviously we have some
that don't belong.
And Secretlondon is also doing great work to try and get permission for
some of the images we have a hard time finding...
Caroline Ford wrote:
>
>
>>Even today I did more - I have had contact with the press offices of the
>>two main opposition parties in the UK and they have both given wikipedia
>>permission to use images of their leading politicians. I presume that
>>you'd want these deleted too.
>>
Not yet. If everything on Wikipedia is GFDL, can we make an argument
that people who give permission to Wikipedia are implicitly agreeing to
GFDL, because that's the only kind of use we have? I think we want to do
our best to save the stuff we have some kind of permission for, before
deciding that permission is worthless.
Also, we need a truce on deleting images until we have a better
consensus. Any deletions need to follow our usual procedures.
--Michael Snow
Not everyone on Wikipedia knows who Richard Stallman is, or cares what
he would say. The moral argument has appeal, but alone it only works if
Jimbo decides the issue by fiat. I presume he asks the question, though,
because he wants some semblance of consensus before making his executive
decision.
I hesitate to rely on moral arguments in a NPOV world. How about a
policy argument, the question being, what is best for Wikipedia? Can we
really use non-GFDL images online, and should we? Jimbo says we can,
based on section 7 of the GFDL, but that we shouldn't, because it
doesn't follow the spirit of the GFDL. Others say we should, because it
allows us to create a better encyclopedia. I say we shouldn't, because
it's bad for the project, and might end up violating the GFDL as well.
I know that we carefully say that "All text is available under the terms
of the GNU Free Documentation License", without saying anything about
the images. But we need to look at a bigger picture than just a
computer-based project. Section 7 applies "if the copyright resulting
from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the
compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit." Fine and
dandy on a computer, where you can claim that the text and the images
are separate files.
But the GFDL applies "in any medium". The Wikimedia Foundation has
ambitions to release Wikipedia in print form. The end of this year has
been suggested as a goal. Do we still claim then that an image is a
separate document from an article? And anyway, we can't limit the rights
of our users to copy Wikipedia articles into print form. But if I use my
printer to print out any article with an image in it, the image prints
out with the text. Voila, I may have infringed someone's copyright! And
by presenting images this way, instead of merely linking to separate
image pages, Wikipedia is limiting my right to copy GFDL text.
Therefore, Wikipedia arguably is not complying with section 7 of the GFDL.
I find it highly disingenuous to rely on an argument that images are
separate from the articles they appear in. Jimbo thinks we're okay
license-wise, but when you get this far, both of us are relying on
technicalities. The law, and legal interpretation, sometimes abandons
such positions, even when they are technically correct. I don't think we
can count on a legally untested license to protect us forever if we
continue to use non-GFDL images. Somebody downstream will use images
without permission, claim the use is licensed, and when they get sued,
Wikipedia will get sued too for having licensed the unauthorized use.
On the other hand, if we stick to images that qualify for GFDL, we don't
need boxes for people to check every time they upload an image. We don't
have to ask users to engage in amateur legal analysis, an unreliable way
to classify our images by copyright status, just in case we might have
to weed out certain classifications later. We can just tell people that
anything you upload has to be free. Unless it's totally free (i.e. in
the public domain), it has to be under a free-content license. Simpler,
and much better in the long run.
--Michael Snow
Hi.
There's another argument I've forgotten to mention:
It may well be that "fair use" is protected in the USA, but that doesn't mean
that some big nasty company can't sue the project. Many companies in the USA
use the legal system as a blunt weapon, without caring much whether they'll
eventually win or lose any given fight.
They'll have more money than we'll do, and they could take it as far as they
wanted.
Of course, in most cases like this we could simply remove the relevant images.
But that could be more of a problem for projects (educational, in the US) who
have printed or made CD copies of Wikipedia.
Also, we could be exposed to companies with an agenda, such as puppets for
encyclopedia publishers. Who knows, maybe the pure audacity of Wikipedia as a
source of Free information will piss of some of the bigger media conglomerates.
I say this counts in favour of staying away from non-free material, free use or
not.
-- Daniel