What I consider terrifying is the fact that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement in the United States is very ambiguous: technically, it is only three years, but there are numerous contradictory cases. Consider this example. I publish a book in August 2005. Another person copies an entire chapter in December 2005 without permission and for profit, directly infringing upon my exclusive right to the material, including it in their book. Their book is published September 2006. A second edition is published September 2007. It is still on the market for several years to come. Courts might consider the December 2005 copy the original date of infringement, others might consider the September 2006, the 2007, or even the later dates when the book is still being published. Furthermore, there is ambiguity as to whether one can sue for damages only based on the past three years, or on the entire time the infringement (in this case) was in print. I know that it is pure speculation and copyright paranoia, but it is frightening. Also, I want to say that even if we decide what we would like to limit (or outright ban) regarding fair use, we should: (1) wait for the official statement from the board and (2) get help from foundation-l or more qualified legal personnel. But I would certainly support discussion about what we would like to allow or disallow. Also, I think we should seriously consider cleaning out our fair use archives...I can testify from roving through the subcategories of [[:Category:Wikibooks images]] that we have a lot of things that should never be considered fair use. -Iamunknown On 2/16/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Garrett entirely. Even if we do continue to allow fair use, we should certainly put on some restrictions, especially considering the legal issues that fair use bring. Fair use media certainly may be helpful to textbook writers such as ourselves, but it does nothing but create unnecessary complications among textbook printers and readers (who are the majority of our wikibooks audience). A fair use image should never be used when an acceptable copyleft or PD image is available, or when an acceptable image can be created and released under such a license. --Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms http://www.NexTag.com

percy tiglao wrote: I apologize that I haven't been up on this discussion, as my computer (and hard drive, etc.) crashed to a completely unrecoverable state over the past couple of weeks. I also apologize in part to the Wikibooks community as I seemed to have initiated the current fair-use discussion that seems to have touched a chord among the WMF board, particularly with Brad Patrick as well as others. Fair-use images has been something of a perennial topic for Wikimedia projects, including Wikibooks. For the most part on Wikibooks, we have been fortunate enough that the actual usage of fair use has been generally quite light, even before image license tagging became vogue for Wikimedia projects. Perhaps the largest "offenders" of fair-use images on Wikibooks in the past was the video game wikibooks, which is clearly a whole other topic of discussion by itself. The issue there in regards to fair-use images was mainly the abuse of screen captures and using parts of the video game in what was often decorative uses of the design elements of the video games rather than specific critical commentary where fair-use rationale would be much more justified. In an attempt to avoid some of the hassles that Wikipedia is currently facing, and upon reading several fair-use discussions on the foundation-l mailing list, I created the current Wikibooks Fair-use policy. While this is a proposed policy, it is in defacto enforcement right now, and pretty much current practice throughout Wikibooks. I am not suggesting that this should be the only reason to delete content or that it would certainly be something worthy of a VfD, but it does give a basis to try and limit fair-use on Wikibooks. That was really the reason I wrote the policy. I felt that in most cases those who were strong advocates of fair-use have in the past tried to expand the definition to the point that I have a very hard time trying to see what the real limit would actually be. In many cases on Wikipedia, I see images that I consider to be simply a copyright violation, but fair-use is being asserted instead. I did not want to see that sort of attitude creep into Wikibooks. I will also admit that this is an issue that I have had to study up on and learn over time, where I've even made mistakes on Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects in the past with images I thought at the time could be justified through fair-use rationale but I now feel really were a simple copyright violation. As far as I know, these images have now all been deleted, even though in most cases there didn't seem to be a reasonable alternative. The justification that is being used often by those promoting fair-use is usually that they can't find any other alternative to obtaining an image or illustration, so fair-use is the only real way to get the content. My counter argument is that it is still a copyright violation unless the image is being used for "critical commentary" in most cases. Since Wikibooks (and Wikipedia) both have "no original research" and "NPOV" policies, I find it hard to see where you can write an editorial review that can retain those two pillars that would warrant the inclusion of fair-use images. Oh, there are some very valiant attempts to do just that, but it seems to be over the top, and those articles and books tend to be the most controversial and problematic in terms of trying reach a consensus as well. I would also like to say that the big posting that was made on foundation-l (and referenced/republished on the Wikimedia Commons) really had only one very substantial policy point regarding Wikimedia projects: Wikimedia projects may not accept images that are "for use only on that project or Wikimedia projects". I don't know of a single case where that has been done or accepted on Wikibooks, but it has been something considered acceptable in the past on Wikipedia and still persists even now, even though current Wikipedia policy is to not allow new images to be uploaded using that philosophy. IMHO the most glaring example of this is the [[w:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg]], where the Associated Press granted formal copyright permission to the WMF for this image to be used on Wikipedia. While normally this would be an outstanding donation, the AP insisted that no derivative uses of this image could be used, hence it technically violates the GFDL even though it is being used "with permission". Since Wikibooks isn't dealing with this issue, the rest of that posting really didn't have, as far as I could see particularly with [[WB:FUP]] as has been written earlier, any significant impact on Wikibooks as a project other than affirming the need to have a policy at least as restrictive as has been proposed here. In framing my arguments about fair-use, I have insisted that the GFDL plays a vital role in determining what exactly would be proper for Wikimedia projects. I do believe that fair-use rationale can be used within GFDL'd content, as somebody re-using and republishing GFDL'd content that includes fair-use content (such as quotes or a reasonable fair-use photo) can also use the same fair use material under the same rationale. But justifications such as educational fair use or non-commercial publications (citing the WMF non-profit status) can't be used precisely because that would not necessarily be transferable to other users of that GFDL'd content. The reasons for using the content must by its nature be very much restricted. At the same time, I think there is room for some limited fair-use images within Wikibooks.