Fastfission wrote:
At present, the project isn't soundly grounded in legal advice. I'm not an attorney so I can't fix that. However I do disagree with the other WikiProject members in several important areas. I believe this is a matter better resolved by competent counsel rather than by compromise and consensus. That is why I have brought it here.
I believe, for example, that we do not accomplish anything meaningful by using low-resolution images and sound clips; consenus appears to be that resolution limits are important. I don't think that discussing or voting on this will help us because it is better settled by sound legal advice. I don't think it is in the best interests of the project to have a bunch of laypeople (non-lawyers) dream up fair use policy.
OK. Then don't complain about how you've tried to discuss this and haven't gotten anywhere with it. You haven't tried to discuss it. In the end, the hope is that one of our Wikilawyer types will look over all of the things we've been working on. But they're probably busy too. Better a dreamed up fair use policy based on some understanding of copyright law than no fair use policy at all. I don't think most of our legal understandings are really so baseless -- there is a heap of caselaw on the usage of small or degraded media in regards to fair use -- but then again, hey! I'm not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know. If you want discussion, it's there for you. If you want "just discussion with lawyers" then you'd better find a few lawyers who want to participate. They're welcome to participate too if they want to.
I'd love it if some legal types would stop by and take a look at what we're up to, give some guidance when it comes down to it. At the moment we're trying to get something basic together, something to work with, and correct the obvious problems of the current policy which have allowed things to get a bit out of control. Which is frankly better than nothing, in my opinion. If your attempts to get unequivocal answers to difficult and murky questions turns up anything useful, please feel free to let the rest of us know. In the meantime, we'll continue our work.
You're essentially correct. If we do nothing until competent legal advice steps up to the plate, we do nothing forever. We could probably spend the entire $200K from the recent fundraising on lawyers and still be no further ahead. Half of that amount could go to those with a conservative attitude toward fair use, and half to those with a more agressive. We would still be left with a decision. Somehow it seems cheaper just to muddle through. At least that way we don't have to spend the money until there is a real case. I suspect that the average lawyer knows very little about copyright law; we may even know more about this specialty. It's probably more cost effective for him to guide his obviously guilty criminal client through a plea bargain. We really shouldn't direct our idolatry towards the lawyers.
To quote you, "Better a dreamed up fair use policy based on some understandingof copyright law than no fair use policy at all." That may be all there is to work with.
Ec