Zoney wrote:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
You are right that this was wrong. I would say that it was still legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something.
It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.
I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia.
Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that I do personally take the position that "fair use" _is a good policy_. The legal rights of copyright holders should not extend so far as to be able to forbid all uses, particularly of the sort encompassed by fair use.
So I think it's important for our global mission to stand up for fair use as a principle, but at the same time, using it as a crutch because we can, or to say we don't care about downstream reusers is a mistake.
At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays.
I think we should only use pictures under fair use if it is *cleanly* fair use and if the photo is of significant historical importance and there is no possibility of getting a free alternative. (Not "it would be difficult" but "no possibility".) This is not our current policy and not something that's coming from me as a directive, but I think it's the right direction for us to move as we mature.
--Jimbo