The problem here is that you can't "give" fair use privileges. Fair use is a defense, not a form of permission. When we post a fair use tag, it is really a pre-emptive statement that says, "If you sue us, this is what we'll say in court, and we think we'll win."
Now, if you say ahead of time, "Well, we're not going to sue you" -- does that change anything? Not really. What if you changed your mind? You're not bound *not* to sue us (or, put in a less accusatory way: what if your group was suddenly acquired by someone else who did not want to honor your previous informal agreement?).
So whether or not the usage of the materials is "fair use" is totally unrelated to whether or not your group approves. The transference of privileges you are talking about is really just a form of licensing, which is *not* what fair use is about.
Whether that means we can or can't use your content depends on its use. I suspect it would still be mostly fair -- a picture of you and a simple table don't sound like things which are going to defraud anybody. And if we trust you not to sue, that would probably bend the "is it fair?"-ometer towards the "not going to sue us" section of things, so it probably isn't a problem. But it isn't so simple as just "granting" fair use -- it is not a license, it is a defense against allegations of violating a license. That's an important difference!
FF
On 7/11/05, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
At Political Research Associates, we are a U.S. non-profit that guards our copyrighted material for a variety of reasons not worth debating on this list. We have come up with a way we think protects Wikipedia as a "Fair-Use" user of some of our material that remains copyrighted, but for which we give explicit permission to Wikipedia for use AND state in a public online file that PRA considers the use by Wikipedia to be "Fair Use" because of its value as research and in the public interest.
I would very much not want the "online cult of everything should be free" to force the removal of our material from Wiki on the odd chance that some downstream user might not read the permission/copyright blurb and just use the material for commercial purposes, which is one of the uses to which we would object.
For examples:
See the picture (yes...of me...an editor asked for a better photo) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet, and mouse hover and click on the picture and click on the permission/copyright notice.
Look for the chart down the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_of_anti-Semitism and do the same.
I offer these a possible alternative, and hope that folks can see why this might be one way to obtain permission in a way that protects Wikipedia and real non-profit or research/scholarly use that benefits the public.
Chip Berlet senior analyst Political Research Associates and Wiki editor [User:Cberlet]
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Fastfission Sent: Mon 7/11/2005 7:24 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: New fair use tag proposal
I think these are good comments. One way around this might be to make fair use tags require article names, i.e., {{fairuse|Article}}, which would then start off by saying, "This page is copyrighted etc. but thought to be fair use on the article {{article}}..."
<<SNIP>>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l