On 6/22/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/21/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
It is a very interesting case and I find it very encouraging. The most relevant aspects in respects to Wikipedia seem to me (non-lawyer that I am) to be:
- That moving a work into a very different context seems to be
considered transformative (i.e. from "expressive use of images on concert posters" into a "biographical work"). Does moving an image into an "encyclopedic work" make it "transformatively different"? Under the court's argumentation here, almost certainly (accompanying the images with textual material and creating something substantially different as a whole than the original).
This part doesn't seem at all new. "Transformative use" has long been considered to include the context of the work, and not just whether or not the work itself was altered. Use of an artistic work for the purposes of commentary, such as in an encyclopedia, would generally be considered highly transformative. Of course, note the qualification "of an artistic work". Taking a diagram from an educational textbook and using it in an encyclopedia article to accomplish the same basic purpose would be much less transformative.
Yes, transformative use has long been a feature of fair use in the US. However, it's not a feature of fair use/dealing under English common law or the Berne Convention. Unless there is some amount of harmonisation, US law will remain largely irrelevant for Wikipedia. As I've repeatedly argued, Wikipedia should be freely redistributable throughout the world, not just in the US.
-- Tim Starling
It'd certainly be nice. To some extent it's unreasonable, of course (we don't want to be freely distributable in China, for example). But to the extent that content is only legally distributable in the USA, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
I don't forsee there being any consensus on this issue for a long time, if ever.
Anthony