Mark, the goal of the project is to make a free encyclopedia. When we speak of free we speak of freedom and not price. There are already many good unfree encyclopedias, and you can even obtain access to them at no cost.
Wikipedia has passed the stage of being comparable to other encyclopedias you can access at no cost.
Often the images we have appropriated from the internet are poorly suited to our needs. In many cases they have other distracting objects in the image, or otherwise fail to clearly illustrate the point which needs to be made. Wikipedia would be much better off if the majority of our images were created with the intention of illustrating an encyclopedia.
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard? Do you have a [[Z machine]]?
If Wikipedia isn't getting enough photographs, we should reach out and encourage more photographers to join our community. A lack of content isn't an excuse to break the law.
No-one is suggesting we do.
Every non-free image we incorporate potentially puts many people who use our content in the intended fashion in a legally precarious position. This risk is not only extends to our users, but also puts the Wikimedia Foundation that runs our servers in danger. Thus every nonfree image and every insufficiently tagged image we incorporate reduces the freedom of Wikipedia. This is simply unacceptable because in a large enough scale it defeats the purpose of our project.
It is a simple matter for downstream users not to include images tagged used-with-permission. Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images in their main text.
And I can sympathise with people who don't give a rat's toenail for the current downstream users, much as I believe in the GFDL.
There are places where the law in most of the world will permit us to use some images which are mostly free because of the nature of our use. However since this use is only permissible in a very limited scope and in a way which applicable world wide, this use also reduces the freedom of Wikipedia and should be avoided even though it is permitted by the law where our servers are operated. Because in some cases we can not adequately do our job without borrowing some copyrighted content in a way which is legally permissible, we continue to permit these images but they must be tagged as such and they should be replaced should a replacement become available.
This is confusing to me. It's *fair use* that's currently allowed - and *that* only works in the US. It's *used-with-permission* that's forbidden and that will work anywhere in the world. I'd argue fair-use is much more dangerous to world wide publication than used-with-permission is.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
Regards, Haukur
On 7/4/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Mark, the goal of the project is to make a free encyclopedia. When we speak of free we speak of freedom and not price. There are already many good unfree encyclopedias, and you can even obtain access to them at no cost.
Wikipedia has passed the stage of being comparable to other encyclopedias you can access at no cost.
It's an encyclopedia. It's always comparable. ... and just as is the case for any other encyclopedia, the world doesn't end because we can't include some images.
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard? Do you have a [[Z machine]]?
Funny you should ask that... I don't actually have a IBM360, but I have at various times had a number of large vaxen, and a few flavors of PDP. I've also had in my garage at various times, an airport style x-ray machine, several multiwatt lasers, the complete line of NeXT computers, a large optical jukebox, several hundred Sun workstations, and many other things.
So, no, I don't have a IBM 360, but people have a lot of equipment that you wouldn't expect.. If not at home then at work... I'm willing to bet some other Wikipedia user does, but they aren't likely to shoot pictures of it if there is already an unfree image on the page.
In the cases of historical objects the lack of an image can be a good opportunity to invite more specialists into our community. Why take in image from "Joe's web museum of old computers" when we can just get joe to upload them himself, and perhaps improve the articles as well?
You picked a fairly bad set of examples in any case.. The [[IBM 360]] page has images which were granted under a free license, the sort of used with permission we don't object to... and the Z machine is a perfect example of something where we can probably get a grant under CC-BY or GFDL.
If Wikipedia isn't getting enough photographs, we should reach out and encourage more photographers to join our community. A lack of content isn't an excuse to break the law.
No-one is suggesting we do.
Yes, actually people are... or rather there are some suggesting that images they've found on the internet should be acceptable for us to use.
It is a simple matter for downstream users not to include images tagged used-with-permission. Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images in their main text.
Actually, it's a pain in the butt to remove the images because of the way we store the tagging.. once you mix in the inconsistency of the tagging it becomes impossible.
The vast majority of the images going up on WP:PUI are images that are likely copyvio for even for us to use.. and are not examples of used with permission.
And I can sympathise with people who don't give a rat's toenail for the current downstream users, much as I believe in the GFDL.
Sympathize as much as you like. Preserving freedom downstream is a goal of the project. Downstrem users doesn't just refer to random useless mirror on the internet, but also refers to people publishing printed works, and to other sister projects like wikibooks.
This is confusing to me. It's *fair use* that's currently allowed - and *that* only works in the US. It's *used-with-permission* that's forbidden and that will work anywhere in the world. I'd argue fair-use is much more dangerous to world wide publication than used-with-permission is.
I brought up fair use because it is almost universally the response to complaints that images are unfree.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
I'm am strongly against abuse of fair use. I haven't noticed WP:PUI accepting images as fair use which shouldn't be... can you cite some examples?
Yes people claim fair use incorrectly.. they claim a lot of things to keep images they found via a google image search or that they didn't obtain with sufficient permission. That doesn't mean we shouldn't remove unfree images of all types as we are able.
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard?
Someone appparently does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM360-65-1.corestore.jpg
GNU FDL.
So you see, giving up too easily is a bad idea.
It is a simple matter for downstream users not to include images tagged used-with-permission. Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images in their main text.
Yes, but the point is: if we have a non-free image, it "scratches the itch" and reduces the incentive for someone to be heroic and find a way to get us a free image. So if we have tons of non-free or fair-use images that people can't reuse, we have a nicer website, but we make the resource less nice for people who want to reuse it.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
I consider this quite unfortunate. I think that our use of fair-use should be restricted solely to pictures of absolute historical importance for which there is no possibility of a free alternative. But this is not a decree because this is an ongoing process of evolution at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_images
A quick scan of these reveals a number of highly dubious images which we could either (a) do without or (b) replace with a freely licensed alternative easily enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1987_Cadillac_Seville.JPG
I should imagine that if we desperately need a boring photo of a 1987 Cadillac Seville, one can be located on the streets easily enough.
--Jimbo
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard?
Someone appparently does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM360-65-1.corestore.jpg
GNU FDL.
So you see, giving up too easily is a bad idea.
Again, I'm sorry for making that typo. The system in question is the [[IBM 1360]]. Three images showing it were recently uploaded to Wikipedia with explicit permission of the copyright holders. They were deleted on sight in accordance with your decree.
According to the uploader all IBM 1360 units have now been disassembled. Obtaining a free image may not be possible. We certainly don't have any now. This is an article which would greatly benefit from having pictures.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
I consider this quite unfortunate. I think that our use of fair-use should be restricted solely to pictures of absolute historical importance for which there is no possibility of a free alternative.
I would be fine with such a policy. And I argue that if we can tolerate a few fair-use images where they are the only ones available we can also tolerate a few used-with-permission images where those are the only ones we can obtain. See [[Z machine]] for another example.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Again, I'm sorry for making that typo. The system in question is the [[IBM 1360]].
Fair enough.
According to the uploader all IBM 1360 units have now been disassembled. Obtaining a free image may not be possible. We certainly don't have any now. This is an article which would greatly benefit from having pictures.
I reckon we ought to consider that a friendly challenge.
Believe me, I'm very sympathetic with the points you've been raising. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the right way to say what I think about it.
--Jimbo
On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an [[IBM 360]] in your backyard?
Someone appparently does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM360-65-1.corestore.jpg
GNU FDL.
So you see, giving up too easily is a bad idea.
It is a simple matter for downstream users not to include images tagged used-with-permission. Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images in their main text.
Yes, but the point is: if we have a non-free image, it "scratches the itch" and reduces the incentive for someone to be heroic and find a way to get us a free image. So if we have tons of non-free or fair-use images that people can't reuse, we have a nicer website, but we make the resource less nice for people who want to reuse it.
And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for fair use on Wikipedia.
I consider this quite unfortunate. I think that our use of fair-use should be restricted solely to pictures of absolute historical importance for which there is no possibility of a free alternative. But this is not a decree because this is an ongoing process of evolution at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_images
A quick scan of these reveals a number of highly dubious images which we could either (a) do without or (b) replace with a freely licensed alternative easily enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1987_Cadillac_Seville.JPG
I should imagine that if we desperately need a boring photo of a 1987 Cadillac Seville, one can be located on the streets easily enough.
Once again, Wikipedia had a "fair use" image on the front page yesterday, accompanying the London bombing news. It was snitched from some news site. Two points:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
b) Are people at Wikipedia serious about a free encyclopedia for all that can be used in many situations (not just Wikipedia.org) by anyone following GFDL reqs? Cause the fair use *defence* is useless in many places, or at the least, more restricted than in the US.
I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia. Yes it would be nice to be able to use whatever images are relevant for our encyclopaedia articles. But we can't - and should stop pretending otherwise.
At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays. That doesn't mean it *is* fair use, or that the fair use defence is any good outside the US.
Wise up and face reality.
Zoney
*I lean somewhat towards this myself - but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased.
Zoney wrote:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
You are right that this was wrong. I would say that it was still legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something.
It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.
I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia.
Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that I do personally take the position that "fair use" _is a good policy_. The legal rights of copyright holders should not extend so far as to be able to forbid all uses, particularly of the sort encompassed by fair use.
So I think it's important for our global mission to stand up for fair use as a principle, but at the same time, using it as a crutch because we can, or to say we don't care about downstream reusers is a mistake.
At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays.
I think we should only use pictures under fair use if it is *cleanly* fair use and if the photo is of significant historical importance and there is no possibility of getting a free alternative. (Not "it would be difficult" but "no possibility".) This is not our current policy and not something that's coming from me as a directive, but I think it's the right direction for us to move as we mature.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050710 01:42]:
Zoney wrote:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
You are right that this was wrong. I would say that it was still legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something. It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.
However, useing another broadcaster's news images is in fact fair use and entirely appropriate in a lot of cases. This is why newscasters cover their stuff in their logo.
I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia.
Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that I do personally take the position that "fair use" _is a good policy_. The legal rights of copyright holders should not extend so far as to be able to forbid all uses, particularly of the sort encompassed by fair use. So I think it's important for our global mission to stand up for fair use as a principle, but at the same time, using it as a crutch because we can, or to say we don't care about downstream reusers is a mistake.
Yes. I think it's entirely in Wikimedia's mission, for example, to speak out on behalf of the public domain, reduced reach of copyright and so forth, because such things would directly help our work. But the Foundation will of course want to tread carefully before setting out on such a path.
At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays.
I think we should only use pictures under fair use if it is *cleanly* fair use and if the photo is of significant historical importance and there is no possibility of getting a free alternative. (Not "it would be difficult" but "no possibility".) This is not our current policy and not something that's coming from me as a directive, but I think it's the right direction for us to move as we mature.
I think this can be done by guidelines, editorial decision and good sense for the moment.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
David Gerard wrote:
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050710 01:42]:
Zoney wrote:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
You are right that this was wrong. I would say that it was still legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something. It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.
However, useing another broadcaster's news images is in fact fair use and entirely appropriate in a lot of cases. This is why newscasters cover their stuff in their logo.
So... all the Wikinews images should have a Wikinews/Wikimedia Foundation watermark?
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Alphax (alphasigmax@gmail.com) [050710 16:27]:
David Gerard wrote:
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050710 01:42]:
Zoney wrote:
a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!
You are right that this was wrong. I would say that it was still legally fair use *for us*, i.e. not a legal problem, but my position is that just because it is legal, this is not enough for us to use something. It is a particularly good example of excessive use of fair use because there were and are a great many free images available on the web yesterday.
However, useing another broadcaster's news images is in fact fair use and entirely appropriate in a lot of cases. This is why newscasters cover their stuff in their logo.
So... all the Wikinews images should have a Wikinews/Wikimedia Foundation watermark?
No, I didn't say that :-) I was mentioning a phenomenon. I think it'd actually be bad because it would discourage open reuse. Perhaps we could add it to the comments field of the jpeg or whatever, or at least encourage such.
(I know when I create a JPEG for Wikipedia, I tend to add license info to the comments field. [I've busted JPEG thieves on the net in the past who didn't bother looking at the comments field.] I wouldn't try to require it of everyone, though.)
- d.