Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/27/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Silas Snider wrote:
Except when process protects us from (potentially lenghty and costly) legal proceedings. Without a tag, it is not clear whether we have the right to even host the image.
It would be nice if people who put up these claims about protecting us had half a clue about what they are saying. Such legal proceedings are always possible no matter what we do. So too is winning the big prize in a national lottery. If you sign a binding agreement to donate 50% of that prize to WMF when you win it, I would suggest that the Board not make that eventuality a prominent part of its future plans.
Of course, it's always possible to be sued no matter what we do... thus we should not do anything to decrease the probability of lawsuit! It's all so simple!
Decreasing the probability of a lawsuit is certainly appropriate. The question is more one of at what probability level does the law of diminishing returns set in.
On a more serious note... It does make sense to permit some things which will never be a risk or a problem. The problem is that with thousands of users, for any instance there is someone who doesn't see a problem with it. My favorite, although old, example is Raul654 arguing that a cover recording of [[Alanis Morissette]]s Ironic [[Ironic (song)]] was public domain.
Permissive as my views may be, that would not extend to making a PD claim unless it was based on facts.
As a result, we can't simple accept all members of the community carrying the ability to make exceptions. To me this seems like a hard problem.
It depends on what kind of exception. It would probably be yes when it's a question of a picture of one's own self. Beyond that, a rationale based on some knowledge of law and facts should be a mandatory precondition in most cases.
I oppose this image being claimed as fair use on English Wikipedia in the Wikipedia: namespace. I'd rather a {{Because Erik Said So}} template be created, if we're going to grant Erik the ability to unilateral ignore our requirements for image in the Wikipedia namespace.
I don't see "Because X said so" as an acceptable fair use rationale.
It is important that in the process of allowing exceptions for obviously harmless things that we do not undo the work of others who have worked so hard to keep unacceptable material out.
Policies can change. The nature of what we call "free" can change. You win some; you lose some. There is no need for them to take this personally.
The unfree image of Tim Starling we hosted on his user page easily caused months of additional work in reducing unfree images in userspace because it was frequently cited as a counter example, prolonging uncomfortable disagreements.
I didn't participate in that discussion, but I'm sure that his opinion on that should have been highly influential.
Of course this is not a matter of legal peril... it is, rather, a matter of commitment to our goal of free content. I hope that when I die no one insults my contribution to Wikipedia by increasing the number of non-free images we have by uploading non-free images of me to all our projects, especially ones where my only interactions were interlanguage links.
You won't be in a position to complain.