But we already incorporate fair use images. It's not fair use to uses someone's image to advertise your product - so what's theproblem with this licence?
Theresa
I agree. As long as the image is usable in a commercial mirror, I think we should allow it. Since Wikimedia refuses to define freeness itself, I'll go to http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html. This page says that a free encyclopedia requires permission of modification of images, but the examples it gives are related to editorial modifications. I think this license is well within the spirit of this definition.
The problem is that one (for-profit) publisher of wikipedia which is not the wikimedia foundation could say: "hey, look what terrific images we have got in this publication"... And AFAIK that goes against that very license.
Theresa
Seems to me that this would go against the license even if it was a non-profit publisher doing that. But I don't see the big deal. The publisher can just use a different image for eir ad.
GFDL implies absolute freedom or nothing at all. In this spirit, Richard Stallman had two or three interventions in this mailing list some months ago.
I think you're thinking of public domain, not GFDL. GFDL is not absolute freedom. Furthermore, we haven't committed ourselves to the GFDL, only the spirit of the GFDL.
But IANAL (and probably those images are not THAT terrific though :)
I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm relying on Jimmy Wales' assertion that mixing *any* image with GFDL text is legally permitted. The question here is whether or not we *should* use these images, not whether or not we legally *can* use them.
Pedro.
Anthony
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:46:42 -0400, Anthony DiPierro anthony_dipierro@hotmail.com wrote:
I think you're thinking of public domain, not GFDL. GFDL is not absolute freedom. Furthermore, we haven't committed ourselves to the GFDL, only the spirit of the GFDL.
Sorry to only pick up on one point out of a whole e-mail, but we are absolutely committed to the GFDL, whether we like it or not: anything that we use 99.99% of the content already submitted for has to be compatible with the GFDL, because that is the licence it has been submitted to us under.
As I say, we can do two things with images: (1) distribute a GFDL version of Wikipedia with only those images that are compatible with the GFDL, and a separate version which includes all images, but is under a more restrictive licence that is compatible with the licence of *all* images used; fair use images, strictly, should not appear in the former; and the latter may actually breach the GFDL's terms for "derivative works" for all I know. or (2) throw out any image that is not GFDL-compliant
AFAIK, currently, we are following option (0), which is "fudge it by saying we haven't decided yet, and offer the images for reuse under a label saying 'these may or may not actually be legal for you to reuse'; and rely on the fact that nobody hates us enough yet to challenge us over it". I may be wrong on that bit, but that's my understanding.
Rowan Collins wrote:
As I say, we can do two things with images: (1) distribute a GFDL version of Wikipedia with only those images that are compatible with the GFDL, and a separate version which includes all images, but is under a more restrictive licence that is compatible with the licence of *all* images used; fair use images, strictly, should not appear in the former; and the latter may actually breach the GFDL's terms for "derivative works" for all I know. or (2) throw out any image that is not GFDL-compliant
AFAIK, currently, we are following option (0), which is "fudge it by saying we haven't decided yet, and offer the images for reuse under a label saying 'these may or may not actually be legal for you to reuse'; and rely on the fact that nobody hates us enough yet to challenge us over it". I may be wrong on that bit, but that's my understanding.
I would not characterize it this way at all. We are following option (2) to the best of our ability. There is an ongoing problem with untagged images, but progress is being made.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
I would not characterize it this way at all. We are following option (2) to the best of our ability. There is an ongoing problem with untagged images, but progress is being made.
The issue is that we need to communicate better that fair use should only be used as a last resort, and replaced with free content whenever possible, even if the free version is inferior. This is something many newbies and even some oldtimers don't get - they tend to treat fair use as a loophole to upload anything they want. Unfortunately this tends to seep through to other Wikipedias, who then simply say "from en:", even if they don't have fair use.
There used to be a fairly complex process page at Wikipedia:Fair use, but it has been replaced with a much simpler process ("explain why you think it is fair use"), which again is mostly ignored. Perhaps a middle ground can be found as part of the upload form redesign.
I'm a big believer in both copyleft and the public domain, but preserving our fair use rights and making good use of them in cases of historically significant images is important. We just need to find the right balance.
Do we have a nice, easy crash course in Wikimedia's copyright ethics and rules somewhere that we can point people to?
Regards,
Erik
On 04 Oct 2004 20:46:00 +0200, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Do we have a nice, easy crash course in Wikimedia's copyright ethics and rules somewhere that we can point people to?
The copyright FAQ is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights also answer a lot of the questions people have about copyrights and fair use on Wikipedia.
Angela.
On 04 Oct 2004 20:46:00 +0200, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
The issue is that we need to communicate better that fair use should only be used as a last resort, and replaced with free content whenever possible, even if the free version is inferior. This is something many newbies and even some oldtimers don't get - they tend to treat fair use as a loophole to upload anything they want. Unfortunately this tends to seep through to other Wikipedias, who then simply say "from en:", even if they don't have fair use.
This is what I have battles with people about. For example, people who want to remove an "unprofessional" but GFDL image to put up a "professional" press photo we have to use under fair use.
There are certainly some things we will forever have problems finding a GFDL or PD image for (forever, assuming the Mickey Mouse perpetual copyright extension situation continues!) Fair use is probably going to have to be accepted there ...
-Matt
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Since Wikimedia refuses to define freeness itself,
*sigh*
Anthony, please don't keep saying things like this. It just is not true.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Since Wikimedia refuses to define freeness itself,
*sigh*
Anthony, please don't keep saying things like this. It just is not true.
Hmm. One of the ironies of freeness is that if you try too hard to define it it isn't free anymore.
Ec