see below :)
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Message: 7 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:49:12 -0700 From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the document vs. everything vs. the text To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 20040811184912.GD5191@wikia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
(...)
If the _only_ way we can use a particular image is through a non-free license, and we believe that a fair use defense would be unavailable to us, or to most contemplated reusers, then it should be avoided.
--Jimbo
I *strongly* disagree.
We should stay able to license (ie. request and permission for the use of) copyrighted, non-"free license" images. I believe it is *essential* that we remain able to do so. As far as I understood things, our policy had always been that it was possible to obtain Wikipedia-specific permission. I was just now moderately shocked to see that under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Image_copyright_tags#Deprecated_tags that option is considered depreciated.
I would like urgently ask people to reconsider on this issue. It is perfectly possible to clearly tag, index and prevent from print inclusion any images where "Wikipedia use only" permission was obtained.
IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.
Why forbid ourselves the right to individually ask copyright holders for permission and use images pursuant to such permission (if obtained)? Is there /any/ reason why we should disallow ourselves doing this?
I am aware that obtaining permission requires effort -- but it's very simple and straightforward, really: If people do put in the effort and obtain permission, then we should remain able to use these specific images pursuant to their "Wikipedia use only" permission. Where people don't put in the effort (or don't succeed), we cannot use the relevant images. To be on the safe side, we should obtain permission first and /then/ upload, but again: Given the tagging and indexing possibilities which we have, is there any reason why we would ban ourselves from doing this?
There are some very important images out there that /should/ be included in the Wikipedia -- and we may just (given our "limited" legal resources) be unable to ever get them under "free" licenses.
In fact, I have just recently sent the below email. It would pain me if you all were to turn around and say "nah-nah, no can do".
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the ones who watch progress bars. http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
On 8 Aug 2004, at 16:25, Jens Ropers wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam of the Associated Press,
cc: English Wikipedia Mailing List wikiEN-L@Wikipedia.org
I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia, the free Internet encyclopedia (http://wikipedia.org), of which I am a contributor.
An anonymous contributor has recently uploaded the following image -- of which I believe you hold the copyright -- to the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg In case the picture is already deleted by the time you access that link: The picture in question is Huynh Cong (Nick) Ut's "naked girl running after napalm attack" photograph of Kim Phuc Phan Thi.
As we have become aware of potential copyright issues with the aforesaid photograph, proceedings have been initiated to delete the picture. However I would like to kindly ask you, on behalf of Wikipedia, to please consider granting us permission for reproduction of the said picture on the Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia is an Internet based free volunteer project by the non-profit Wikipedia Foundation. As such we cannot unfortunately offer payment. However, I would like to make the following points in favour of licensing the picture for Wikipedia use:
- You would leave a lasting very positive impression of the Associated
Press to Wikipedia users and Internet users worldwide. An appropriate caption could be added to that effect.
- You would not loose any rights to the picture, as NOT all pictures
on the Wikipedia are in the public domain and neither does the GNU Free Documentation License always apply. Copyrighted pictures have been licensed for Wikipedia use before. A caption could clearly state this and even made part of the picture.
- You would do the public a service and combat disinformation: The
picture is at the center of various disputes on Wikipedia, with those contributors most emphatically seeking its removal having a politicized edit history: For example, they have denied that the U.S. strike documented by the picture was carried out by the U.S.; this despite the fact that Kim Phuc's meeting with John Plummer is well documented.
- Please also consider that by licensing the picture for Wikipedia
use, you would NOT loose potential revenue -- due to the volunteer nature of the project, Wikipedia cannot incorporate any for-fee material (like conventional encyclopedias can). If we cannot convince you to kindly grant permission, we would simply have to refrain from using the picture.
- Also, the image file which was uploaded to us is low resolution and
unfit for print publication. Thus, hypothetically, even if some party intended to maliciously copy the file from the Wikipedia for further reproduction, they would find it of rather limited use.
Please be invited to visit http://en.wikipedia.org to find out more about the Wikipedia.
(The Wikipedia is also available in many languages other than English -- including Vietnamese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#Wikipedia_in_other_languages , http://vi.wikipedia.org.)
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the ones who watch progress bars. http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
PS: I am writing all this on the assumption that you are indeed the current copyright holder and that the picture's use with Wikipedia is not covered under the "fair use" principle. Should I be wrong, then I don't mean to make any misrepresentation one way or the other. I am again assuming that you hold the copyright and that we cannot use the picture without your permission, but I have no special insight into the matter. Should you choose to deny us permission to use the picture, I would urgently pass that message on to the relevant admins, where such clarification from your side will certainly lead to a speedy resolution of the issue.