In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:50:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, scs(a)eskimo.com
writes:
> If our policy for when to use fair-use images and when not says
> "never use them", we will never receive a cease-and-desist letter
> disputing our allegedly fair use of an image.>>>
---------------
That's right, but it doesn't say that.
Next issue?
**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL
Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…)
What I would say Kurt is, I like this proposal.
It would be useful to the project to write it up, we can whiteboard it and
come to some consensus about how it would work. We wouldn't start with it
being *mandatory* or anything of that nature, but strictly a voluntary process
that admins could agree to which to adhere, or not.
We already have a similar voluntary agreement by some admins to be "subject
to recall". Your proposal would make *how that works* just be quite a bit
more specific.
If you start the page, I would be willing to contribute to it.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:38:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Will Johnson wrote:
> If anyone thinks that we're ever going to *know* whether any free-use
> image will be challenged, they are wrong. We can never know. We can
> create a policy for when to use them and when not, we can modify and
> expand it, but we are always going to be subject to the possibility of
> getting a "cease and desist" letter.
Of course, your last conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. :-)
--------------------------
Explain. Are you claiming the "subject to the possibility" is a conclusion
that has to follow from the preceding statements? "Possibility" is not a
conclusion that follows, its a constant state no matter what statements are made.
Otherwise I don't understand what you're saying.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:14:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
So what is "you are implicitly and voluntarily giving up your right"?
That's just your interpretation, right? I don't think we'll ever know.>>
----------------------
That's right. Now you've got the hang of it.
Law, just like Wiki-policy is subject to interpretation, which is why case
law is so important in the US at any rate. You never know in advance how
something will go, even if you *think* you have an iron-clad situation.
It's my view, that a person voluntarily using your camera to take your
picture, is your free employee. If anyone thinks that we're ever going to *know*
whether any free-use image will be challenged, they are wrong. We can never
know. We can create a policy for when to use them and when not, we can
modify and expand it, but we are always going to be subject to the possibility of
getting a "cease and desist" letter.
Which is not the end of the world. The main copyright issues, are not
because an entity *violated* the copyright, but are when they were told, they
fought it. If you comply with the letter, the matter is generally dropped
*unless* the offended party can create a claim that you deprived them of some kind
of substantial income.
Hardly likely in our case.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:26:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson(a)aol.com writes:
If anyone thinks that we're ever going to *know*
whether any free-use image will be challenged, they are wrong. We can
never
know.>>>
-----------------
Recte:
Of course this should say "fair use" not free...
Will
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:10:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
This is a discussion list. Being subscribed is a prerequisite for
discussion, so there is no point in having unsubscribed people posting
here.>>
--------------
I'd say that quite a bit of our community is not as computer-savvy as
others. I've been in-project since, I don't know like 2003 or something, and I've
only just joined this list recently. I still cannot figure out how to join
the IRC channel. These sort of technological hurdles could be made lower.
People most likely send messages to the list directly and unsubscribed
simply because they don't know *how* to subscribe. If the bounce message makes it
crystal-clear, they probably then would.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:11:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Really? Who holds the copyright on such a pic? If you argue for no
contract then the situation is easy to deal with. The person who took
the picture holds the copyright thus the camera owner can't upload to
wikipedia and any such image should be deleted. However in your email
dated 2 Mar 2008 08:14 you described such deletions as "ridiculous
behaviour" which means you must think there is some form of valid
implied contract in such an action. Perhaps there is as I said I don't
know but it is an issue of contract law.
> Please point to some case, in contract law, where a random stranger, sued
> the person they were taking a picture of, because they didn't get
permission or
> whatever you're saying.
As I said no established case law. That doesn't mean there isn't law
in this area just makes it hard to be sure what it is.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
When I hire someone to work in my studio and take pictures of children, the
employee does not hold the copyright to such work, the owner of the studio
does. When you are offered a *position* even at no pay, and you agree, you are
implicitely and voluntarily giving up your right to claim the results of
that work later.
If there is no established case law, then why are you arguing that it's the
law? It's your interpretation of the law. And that's all it is.
Our policy however is not based on your particular interpretation, but
rather on the consensus, addressing directly, and in particular, each issue as it
arises. Claiming to hold an argument of the high-horse position, might
dissuade those easily misled, but it doesn't work on people who don't agree with
an appeal to authority.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 5:05:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
I re-affirm my impression that it is.>>
---------------------
You, and you-all are invited to Nonfree where we can try to work out some of
these issues.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:28:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
but they are a tiny minority of
complaints levelled against admins.>>
--------------------------
Maybe. I would suggest however that they are a much larger percentage of
those complaints that come before AN/I.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:49:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
Certainly. And my reading is that the community consensus is very
firmly against fair-use content, and indeed all nonfree content.>>
--------------------
That's unfortunate because our Non-free policy does not actually state this.
So I'd say this reading is flawed.
As Geni pointed out we have 200K of fair use images in Commons.
So it would seem that community consensus is not "very firmly against
fair-use content".
Wouldn't you.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)