[WikiEN-l] Next step in "fair use" cleanup?

[KWH]

on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fair enough.  Is it required that the original uploader provide the
> > fair use rationale, or can someone else?  If we require the original
> > uploader, that might be a problem.  If you're not the original
> > uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming
> > responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
> >
> > -Matt
> No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
>
> Mgm

Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright
holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The
existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the
defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by
their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
four factors based on the evidence presented.

Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair
use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at
least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their
work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then
having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going
to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's
advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their
recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and
they're not going to take advice from the adversary.

I also wanted to respond to your message on another thread, MGM:

> You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone
> else put in an article. Too many people know too little about
> copyright law or are just completely ignorant.

But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're
authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our
contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as
example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually
exercise fair use as much as images do.

I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the
mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so
I will understand it for you."

Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:

Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of
example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search.
Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going
to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're
all there.

We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag
and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are
implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of
extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can
make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet
fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting
certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big
lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like
they have before.

Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but
does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)

[[User:Kwh]]