Matt Brown wrote:
Good point. I also have had several ...
not-quite-fights ... with users who
either attempt to replace free-licensed pictures with supposedly 'better'
"fair use" pictures, or who object to my removing a fair-use picture in
favor of a free one. They complain that the free ones look 'amateurish'
because they're not studio shots.
That /is/ a valid argument, you have to admit. Aspiring to be a serious
encyclopedia project, many of our contributors feel that the quality not
only of the text but also of the pictures is a more important goal than
some obscure (in their mind, not mine) copyright concern. As long as
"fair use" means "we can use it legally", to most people it meets that
goal better than an inferior-quality image with free licensing does.
The primary reason we want freely-licensed images is not because they're
more beautiful but because they make our content as a whole more
reusable. So maybe there should be a feature whereby an article can have
two images, but if you visit
wikipedia.org you will only see the
better-quality-but-fair-use one, while the database dumps will contain
only the ugly-but-freely-licensed one.
Obviously, there will be varying opinions on how this should be designed
and implemented, so it's probably not going to get done.
Timwi