<!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="mid20040221102715.0EBE913843F@mail.wikimedia.org">Michael Snow
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are
combining an article with an image into a single document
under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the
image alone. We are licensing them to modify the document,
and potential modification includes stripping out all the text
and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
modification--that's essential to copyleft.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright and thus a fair use
but otherwise non-FDL image in an article can no more become copyrighted under
the GNU FDL than a quote in the same article can (fair use is essentially a
grant into a type of public domain for limited uses).</pre>
</blockquote>
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. It is not in any sense a grant into the
public domain, it's merely a limitation on the copyright owner's
ability to prevent certain uses. The work used remains copyrighted,
only the particular use is allowed. Any material we use under fair use
is copyrighted, but because we don't own the copyright, we don't really
have the ability to properly grant GFDL on it, because we can't
restrict downstream users to the particular use that was *fair*.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040221102715.0EBE913843F@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap=""> In short, no license can
affect whether or not something is fair to use since it is the *use*, not the
license terms, that determine fairness. </pre>
</blockquote>
This statement is much closer to the truth.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040221102715.0EBE913843F@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap="">
We just need to tag images used under the various types of fair use. Stuff that
would be fair use for non-commercial and commercial downstream users should
have one tag and stuff that would be fair use for non-commercial use but not
downstream commercial users should have a different tag. </pre>
</blockquote>
Every case that claims fair use has to be considered separately. The
question of whether the use is commercial is a factor, but you can't
simply classify everything into commercial and non-commercial to decide
whether it is okay. Tagging images would be of very little help to
someone deciding whether their use of our images would be fair or not.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
</body>
</html>