Fastfission wrote:
On 11/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is all still only one of the four factors in fair use. If we use a fair use image our obligation to the downstream user is to let him know that we are invoking fair use. That forwarns him of possible problems. A for-profit downstream user has a responsibility to do his own due dilligence. It would be completely irresponsible for him to say in court that he used because Wikipedia said it was fair use.
I think you're missing my point, which is that the "possible problems" warning is basically something which says, "If you use this file in any way which is not educational/not-for-profit/encyclopedic, you might be committing a copyright violation." It's a very strong limitation on re-use. And it only applies in the USA, but that's another question alltogether.
Certainty in many cases will remain unattainable. If a fair use image can be replaced by an acceptable free one we do better to replacxe it. I don't think that will always be possible. A warning is only an alternative solution.
*We're* not imposing that restriction, of course. It's built into the law, which favors our sort of usage over most others. However, if we use a considerable amount of content under that clause, we end up creating not an encyclopedic built on free content, but one based on educational-only content, even if it is not any particular license which says that. It is a de-facto limitation. The use of "fair use" media will mean that we are never truly creating a truly "free" encyclopedia -- we're creating one that will have to be filtered through carefully if is ported to for-profit contexts.
There is no single criterion for how much is too much.
My argument isn't one about people getting sued in court -- it's one about people not being able ot use our content. It's about someone looking at it and saying, "Gee, I guess I can't use this photograph, since I'm not using it in an educational context." Which was a usage situation which I thought was more restrictive than we wanted to impose (even if we are imposing it implicitly rather than explicitly).
Maybe I'm just not as worried about the downstream users as you.
Ec