Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It is an explicit goal of the project to produce an
encyclopedia of
free content. Fair use images are not free. Thus it is harmful because
the explicit goals of the project define unfree content as a
non-solution. The fact that other factors may make the harm
preferable to other harms does not change the fact that unfree content
is a harm.
But:
1) Fair use has not been defined as any sort of harm, only that it's
contrary to an eventual goal.
2) We already allow fair use, thus implying that it's really not harmful
at all.
This is not rocket science. Did you even read my post? Did you read
Kat's post? Must I assault you verbally to get your attention? :(
Preferably with witty barbs and heavy doses of sarcasm, in a light cream
sauce.
If it's logical please explain your thought
process.. because I'm not
getting it.
A photo of a building in the town over is an "unfree" image on Wikipedia
currently. I can't get over to said building to take a picture until,
say, next Saturday. The "unfree" picture harms nothing. It does not
detract from the project's goal, it does not harm anything. Furthermore,
said building is an architectural wonder, with unique arches and windows.
Removal of the image until next week does harm to the project, as the
unfree image illustrates the object in ways words simply cannot. The
unfree image, in this case, is not harming at all, but rather helping.
This logic can apply to any "unfree" "replaceable" image. The policy
does
further harm to the project because of the broad defintion of
"replaceable" that's being asserted by people who should know better. An
image of J D Salinger is not really replaceable. An image of a female
indie rock musician who has not played publically in 3 years, and has
since gotten married and had children, is not really replaceable. An
image of a high-profile rock band that bans cameras from their live shows
is not really replaceable, unless we're advocating that other people break
the rules so they don't have to break ours. The policy is more harmful
than the "unfree" image that the policy is designed to replace.
I reiterate - there is NOTHING wrong with pushing for free content. It's
undoubtedly secondary to why most of us are here, but it's absolutely
worthwhile and useful to have and encourage. To push free content to a
fault - where a fair use image cannot be used because a free *might* pop
up - is not logical. We would never do that with, say, quotations from a
book about a President, which is fair use content that we allow although
the opinions are freely replaceable.
1) Non-free images do discourage people from
contributing free images.
This has happened to me personally so you can't deny it without
calling me a liar, it has happened to friends of Jwales so you can't
deny it without calling him a liar, we've seen people say it in
emails. Even for folks like me who love replacing unfree images can't
tell if an image is unfree unless they click on it. That this happens
is not really open for debate.
I think I can thoroughly disagree with this without calling anyone a liar.
I don't think the stick is getting the free content there any faster than
the people who are militant about deleting these images could be by
spending that time finding a free alternative.
-Jeff
