CB low
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:08:12 -0700 From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.
I don't think so. There might be some extreme cases in which we might desperately need something that is unavailable under a free license and also unavailable under a conservative interpretation of 'fair use/fair dealing', but it is very hard to think of examples.
One very big issue is that if we permit ourselves to use content under a proprietary license, we do two very bad things:
- We dilute our standing as a shining example of what freedom can
bring. We lose the ability to speak publicly and say: "Look, the claim that proprietary copyright is necessary for the production of quality content is not true; we have proven it." Instead, we have to point to our work and say "Well, some of it is free, but some of it is proprietary, and we really needed the proprietary stuff to make it work."
- We remove the incentive for free alternatives to develop. Imagine
if I went to a major stock photo house and obtained, as a charitable contribution, licenses for wikipedia-only use of photos of major landmarks around the world. Then why should anyone bother to go out and take a photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa with Wikipedia in mind?
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.
I concede that there may well be *a few* rare cases where this is absolutely necessary for scholarly integrity. We should make careful judgments about those exceptions, on a case-by-case basis.
What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a crutch because it is easier or more convenient.
--Jimbo
I can actually see where you're coming from and I would even largely agree. However, with respect to the [[Image:TrangBang.jpg]] I emailed AP about -- are you ok/is there agreement that this would be one of the "few rare cases"? I would strongly plead that it is. My email was this:
From: ropers@ropersonline.com Subject: electronic reproduction permission request -- Nick Ut's "naked girl running from napalm attack" photograph of Kim Phuc Phan Thi Date: 8 August 2004 16:25:15 GMT+02:00 To: apdigital@ap.org
(content omitted here)
I previously cc'd this mailing list on that email.
Thanks and regards,
- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]