<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Daniel Mayer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040222005858.00FD4138485@mail.wikimedia.org">Michael Snow
wrote<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107
of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside
the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be
claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used
more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain'</pre>
</blockquote>
It seems that you're talking about fair use more as an abstract idea. I
have no problem with that, it was just difficult to recognize when the
terms being used also have well-established legal significance, and
much of the discussion has revolved around legal ramifications. My
criticism was primarily out of concern that people might read your
statement as reflecting the actual state of the law, especially coming
from such a widely respected source. If considered in those terms, I
felt it was dangerously misleading.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040222005858.00FD4138485@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap=""> (Alex
and I got into a fight over this very issue).</pre>
</blockquote>
I noticed that.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040222005858.00FD4138485@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap=""> Fair use let's people use small
parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the
larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore
the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the
larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that
point. </pre>
</blockquote>
It does make it more comprehensible to me. If I understand correctly,
you're talking about whether Wikipedia articles have their own
copyright, even if they incorporate other copyrighted materials under
fair use. They do, and if Alex was suggesting that they don't, I
consider that a purely theoretical argument with no practical
significance.<br>
<br>
My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it incorporates fair use
materials, is limited to uses that qualify as fair under copyright law.
This does not affect our ability to protect the copyright in Wikipedia
content. However, it does severely limit our ability to license other
people to use that content. When we use material under fair use, the
GFDL does nothing to force downstream users to stick to the same use.
In fact, the GFDL clearly allows them to make many other uses of the
material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely to qualify as fair
uses. Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.<br>
<br>
I hope that explains where I'm coming from. We probably have been
talking past each other to some extent, and I apologize for any
miscommunication.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
</body>
</html>