In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:00:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, eugene@vanderpijll.nl writes:
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself.>>
-------------- By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
No, but there's a reason for our policy which requires appropriateness - the Fair Use exceptions include educational purposes, and it's a lot easier to argue that an image is educational when it's used on an article directly related to the image (the article on the album, person, etc) than on random others.
On 24/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
We're continuing to refer to the Foundation policy and the English Wikipedia implementation of such, not to "Fair Use" - the policies refer to "nonfree". You are consistently failing to address this point, and failing to acknowledge that your use of Betacommand as a proxy target for your problems with Foundation policy is grossly inappropriate.
- d.
WJhonson@aol.com schreef:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:00:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, eugene@vanderpijll.nl writes:
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself.>>
By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure (are you?) but anyway the rules that wikipedians should follow are the Foundation's board resolution on free content and the what's-it-called... EDP(?) of the English Wikipedia.
Are you familiar with http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ?
Two excerpts:
"EDPs must be minimal. Their use [...] should be [...] to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works."
"This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects."
(Read the whole thing. There's a link to the English EDP on that page.)
We at enwiki cannot change those rules, we have to follow them, and BCB is doing exactly that. You will have to convince the board if you want to change this policy.
Eugene
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:00:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, eugene@vanderpijll.nl writes:
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself.>>
By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. ( http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598 ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're confusing de minimus with fair use. de minimus as a defense just implies the use of the work was insufficient to impact the monetary value of the copyright for the copyright holder. This is a defense which is officially invalid in 3 districts of the court of appeals. The supreme court has yet to weigh in. Fair use specifically requires critical commentary or discussion on the work itself, something usually not done in the case of celebrity images, for example.