On 25/09/2007, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In what way are they an issue?
1)there appears to be a market for low res album covers
2)the shear number of them we use
3)the lack of commentry on the cover art in articles.
Things like [[Abbey Road (album)]] are not a problem but
[[Endless_Love_soundtracks]] is (ignoreing the other problems with
that article).
Have we had any complaints?
Honestly interested..
I don't belive so. However sites with simular content have had issues
in the past:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3608.cfm
However, the recent practise is to replace AGF with
bots because they
cant assume, judging good in black and white, and dont have time for
the messy business of intentions. The balance has shifted without
consensus due to the efficiency of the bots, and the backlogs they
cause. Admins clearing those backlogs on Wikipedia rarely spare the
time for the easy cases such as logos, PD images that can be detected
with the human eye and brain
PD images should not be turning up in the fair use pile.
and user contributed images that are
almost certainly intended to be donated to Wikipedia under any
license, except that the new user has no idea how to do that.
The legal situation with regards to these is so messy such images are
best deleted.
The more use
able an encyclopedia is the better it is.
In context of the email you responded to, this is an argument for
gracefully degrading when images cant be used. We can, and should,
have the 1000 words as well as the image. Free images are of no use
to the blind.
That is not a copyright issue.
I'll
be roundly condemned for saying this, but I believe that the
second and stronger motive for being so rampantly anti-fair-use,
for deleting all fair-use images now (instead of leaving them
around until truly-free alternatives can be found), is that it
helps push a POV agenda that the world's copyright laws and
attitudes about copyright are wrong and need to be changed.
Nope. Most of the world doesn't have fair use. If you wanted a better
conspiracy theory you might wish to consider the match between fair
dealing and our fair use polices.
Does this mean then that you want the English Wikipedia to have our
non-free media limited to the intersection of all non-free laws across
the globe?
No
Has an analysis been done on what provisions for
non-free
will be left if that was adopted ?
No because no one has suggested it.
I expect that this would exclude
all satire, and probably many other types of reuse allow for by common
law. A more workable approach would be to limit non-free to the
provisions in the country of origin where also permissible in the host
country USA. A lot of our fair-use media originates from the USA, so
this would mean that fair-_use_ is still acceptable in those cases.
I really really don't feel like trying to trace all unfree images to
country of origin and then haveing to learn any more elements of
french law than I've already needed to.
Again, I think that dragons be there, and we are on
safer ground by
finding ways to include most image where USA fair-use applies, and
ensure that the encyclopedia gracefully degrades where an image may
not be used.
There are over 100 legal systems on this planet. Have fun working that
one out. While most of the former british empire has fair dealing
based systems there are the other european empires to consider as well
as all the local modifications.
This would of course be coupled with measures to tag
images that are replaceable and try to find replacements as soon as
possible.
Been suggested from time to time.
On a local
level we have found we are more likely to get free media
where non free media is forbidden.
{{fact}}
See our living people bios. Used to be almost every pic of non US gov
person was non free. Now this is not the case and images numbers in
that area are riseing again.
Forbidding non-free media has a cost of churning
through non-free
images,
Fairly low once people get that we are serious about this free media thing.
and even the effort to acquire free media where
non-free would
be sufficient, in the short term,
What you accept in the sort term you will accept image copyright wise
in the long term and before long people will be argueing that they
have some right to it.
is time that could have been spent
creating free media where there is no non-free equivalent,
Generaly the people who do that are not the same people.
or
uploading historically valuable works to Wikisource, or writing more
free content on Wiktionary, Wikipedia and Wikibooks. As you know,
putting works on Wikisource also usually involves adding free media to
the commons, and expanding Wikipedia increases the visibility of
Wikimedia, in turn promoting the addition of free media by new
contributors.
No. You get free media from new contributers by sending a clear
signal. Allowing unfree media does not help with that.
We need to be careful not to put free media ahead of
the other free content.
We put it considerable behind.
We accept
copyright as is. The GFDL doesn't really work otherwise.
Right, nobody who is well informed in this debate is against
copyright; we all know that it underpins our daily contributions.
Most of us have been around long enough to intimately understand the
basis, motivations and long term effects of different copyleft
strategies. The debate here is similar to the nature of the "open
source" vs "free software" debate, only in this case it is "fair
use/dealing is a human right" vs "free content".
That would suggest that I accept that "human rights" have some kind of
real existance beyond people's power to enforce them. I do not.
We are all on the
same side, but have differences on the priorities and how we should
act in the short term in order to promote the same long term goals.
For my part, it is the current practices for removing fair-use that
concern me, as I am happy with the policy of limiting replaceable
fair-use. I think upload limitations may even be necessary to keep
fair-use manageable, perhaps using the upcoming flagged revisions
improvements to build better heuristics into MediaWiki to determine
when a user should be prevented from uploading more images.
We do not have the ability to only block people from uploading.
Another solution is to put more eyes onto the problem
sooner by
enhancing the upload function so that, on enwiki, it is an action
associated with articles. All new images could initially be placed
onto a gallery tab of the associated article, and these uploads would
then appear on the Watchlist of people who potentially care about the
image. This would hopefully ensure that images are quickly
investigated, cleaned up, properly tagged and put to good use, or
pushed into the deletion queue because the image itself isnt
desirable.
Generaly experence suggests that copyright is best delt with by people
who don't otherwise generaly interact with the article. See
wikiproject clasical music's attempt at a copyright policy or the
issues that complicated what was copyright wise a fairly
straightforward case with regards to
[[:Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg]]
A natural extension of this would be to limit the
image to
that one article until it can be verified as free content, or a
fair-use rationale's for another article has been assessed & approved.
So people upload it twice under different names.
--
geni