On 6/22/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This part doesn't seem at all new. "Transformative use" has long been considered to include the context of the work, and not just whether or not the work itself was altered. Use of an artistic work for the purposes of commentary, such as in an encyclopedia, would generally be considered highly transformative. Of course, note the qualification "of an artistic work". Taking a diagram from an educational textbook and using it in an encyclopedia article to accomplish the same basic purpose would be much less transformative.
Agreed. But in cases where the change of context and purpose is drastic, I think we can be more confident. I'm thinking here of things like magazine covers, screenshots, fine art, posters, etc., which were, by definition, never originally in an encyclopedic context, where we always had a lot of them but the justification always felt a little shakey (which occasionally gave way to purging).
Context is definitely different, but purpose is less assuredly different. Taking magazine covers, for example, if the purpose of the magazine cover is to depict a certain person, and the purpose of putting the magazine cover in the encyclopedia is to depict that person, then things aren't very transformative, are they?
I only think Wikipedia should use magazine covers when talking about the magazine cover itself. That is not to say that it is illegal to use a magazine cover in other ways, it is simply to say that fair use is an alternative which should only be used in very limited circumstances. Tim Starling gave one reason - countries other than the US don't have fair use laws. Another reason is that fair use is grey area. It's been said that only nine people in the country really know what it means, referring to the nine members of the Supreme Court.
Anthony