1.the safest course is not to have free use images at all, and the decision was already made not to do that. 2. agreed. 3. There is no reason why a free encyclopedia should be less free than other publications--the highest standard is to respect & honor the law by using the rights it provides. Fair use is not a favor, but a right. To the extent we are noncommercial & educational we have greater fair use rights than many other entities. 4. This is iconic as illustrating Einstein's general irreverent attitude and so a caption could be immediately written to say that 5. this is a perfect example of how we can find the best use of available content.
On 7/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/18/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
(I don't know the background or details of this issue, but...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_Ju...
this is making my brain hurt.
That's a pretty easy call really.
Fair use should be limited as much as possible in order to maintain the encyclopedic integrity while staying focused on our mission. The Einstein article already has substantial images of the man. The image can only be fair use within our criteria if the image is of major significance to the article. Currently, the article just speaks to Einstein's ability to stick out his tongue. That's hardly sufficient.
There's claims the image is iconic (I grant it is) and culturally relevant (I grant it might be). Ok, so write about that...then the image becomes of use. Without that, the image is worthless to the article and is purely decorative.
"Fair use" seems to be the cry for anyone who can't be bothered to look more deeply into a situation. This is a 1951 photograph! Where was it first published? Who owns the copyright? Was it properly renewed? .Given that some have attached the "iconic" description, has anyone with a connection to the article ever filed a copyright action about the picture? In the absence of such a legal actions perhaps the copyright has been effectively abandoned. The answers to these questions may very well lead to a determination that the image is already in the public domain. If that's the case fair use is not relevant.
With older photographs especially it would be nice if people did a little homework before diverting the debate into a fair use discussion. It would be a far greater benefit to the encyclopedia if works treated as unfree by virtue of uncertainty were established as free.
- In copyright issues, we should err on the side that keeps us safest
legally; 2. I see no copyright problem here - the iconic nature of the image gives us a free pass, generally, in fair use, as many publications have used this picture with less context than we provide; 3. Because we are a free encyclopaedia we hold ourselves to a higher standard than other publications and demand that non-free content's usage be justified in some way by significantly improving our coverage; 4. By having nothing more than a relevant caption, it is difficult to argue that having this non-free picture significantly improves [[Albert Einstein]]; 5. This is a perfect illustration of why we should stop quibbling about "is it fair use under American law?" and start asking "is this non-free content necessary for the encyclopaedia?"
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l