On 11/16/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
This is all still only one of the four factors in fair
use. If we use a
fair use image our obligation to the downstream user is to let him know
that we are invoking fair use. That forwarns him of possible problems.
A for-profit downstream user has a responsibility to do his own due
dilligence. It would be completely irresponsible for him to say in
court that he used because Wikipedia said it was fair use.
I think you're missing my point, which is that the "possible problems"
warning is basically something which says, "If you use this file in
any way which is not educational/not-for-profit/encyclopedic, you
might be committing a copyright violation." It's a very strong
limitation on re-use. And it only applies in the USA, but that's
another question alltogether.
*We're* not imposing that restriction, of course. It's built into the
law, which favors our sort of usage over most others. However, if we
use a considerable amount of content under that clause, we end up
creating not an encyclopedic built on free content, but one based on
educational-only content, even if it is not any particular license
which says that. It is a de-facto limitation. The use of "fair use"
media will mean that we are never truly creating a truly "free"
encyclopedia -- we're creating one that will have to be filtered
through carefully if is ported to for-profit contexts.
My argument isn't one about people getting sued in court -- it's one
about people not being able ot use our content. It's about someone
looking at it and saying, "Gee, I guess I can't use this photograph,
since I'm not using it in an educational context." Which was a usage
situation which I thought was more restrictive than we wanted to
impose (even if we are imposing it implicitly rather than explicitly).
FF