I doubht there is any such feature at the moment, though it might be possible implement by building on the existing "bad image" feature, effectively turn anyting labeled with a "fair use" template into a "bad image" with regards to the User: namespace (and others). You can't hard code this in because templates change, new are added and so forth, but a list in the MediaWiki namespace of "blacklisted" templates (or categories if that is easier) might be doable.
In the meantime someone with toolserver access could relatively easily make a bot that automaticaly remove anyting "fair use" from userpages, userbox templates and things like that.
I have a report page that lists user pages sorted by the number of fair-use images. (it might take a while to load)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_fairusers
A synopsis:
241 [[User:HeraldicBot/Gallery]] 229 [[User:Gram123]] 226 [[User:CyberSkull/Images/Icons]] 208 [[User:Cburnett/Images]] 181 [[User:CyberSkull/Images]] 176 [[User:WolfenSilva]] 143 [[User:YUL89YYZ/images/DVD_covers]] 119 [[User:Palm_dogg/Images]] 116 [[User:Electionworld/worldwide]] 112 [[User:Johan_Elisson/football_badges]] 107 [[User:Dlloyd]] 100 [[User:Cyde/template_check]]
Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded". It's fantastic that they've uploaded so many images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]] were turned into [[:Image:...]] links. Do these look like the sort of things that should be changed by a bot? Given how helpful these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on their talk pages first.
(for what it's worth, I'm counting any image on en.wikipedia.org that's under Category:Fair_use_images, which contains 112 subcategories. I think that's the slow part though)
-Interiot
I've started dropping messages on some of their talk pages, suggesting they remove the links or change them to the [[:Image: format instead. A bot might be useful for some of these cases though (inactive users, or very large pages).
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Interiot wrote:
I have a report page that lists user pages sorted by the number of fair-use images. (it might take a while to load)
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_fairusers
[...]
Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded". It's fantastic that they've uploaded so many images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]] were turned into [[:Image:...]] links. Do these look like the sort of things that should be changed by a bot? Given how helpful these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on their talk pages first.
Heh, I have a couple of those, used for tracking purposes. The :Image: syntax would serve just as well for detecting deletions, but not over-upload vandalism. One could argue that if such pages are used for image management and maintenance, they are no more violations of fair use than [[Category:Fair use images]] and its subcategories, which if you think about it, are themselves galleries of fair-use images appearing elsewhere than in their proper contexts (being auto-generated via category mechanism doesn't get you off the hook!).
Stan
On 16 Jan 2006, at 08:28, Interiot wrote:
Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded". It's fantastic that they've uploaded so many images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]] were turned into [[:Image:...]] links. Do these look like the sort of things that should be changed by a bot? Given how helpful these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on their talk pages first.
Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images helpful? Upload more than a few and its no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
Justinc
On 1/16/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images helpful? Upload more than a few and its no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
I don't see it as necessarily so. An editor who's been here a long time and made a lot of contributions may have uploaded, over time, hundreds of fair use images without doing "wholesale copying". And the legality of it depends on the fair use rationale, doesn't it?
-Matt
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 16 Jan 2006, at 08:28, Interiot wrote:
Most of them are "a list of everything I'm uploaded". It's fantastic that they've uploaded so many images, but it would be still better if all fair-use [[Image:...]] were turned into [[:Image:...]] links. Do these look like the sort of things that should be changed by a bot? Given how helpful these users have been, I would be more in favor of discussing it on their talk pages first.
Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images helpful? Upload more than a few and its no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
For postage stamps alone, there are about 200 modern countries, and one would want at least five recent (still under copyright by their postal admins) stamps just to illustrate basic facts, so there's a thousand unavoidable fair-use images right there. The world is a big place...
Stan
"Justin Cormack" justin@specialbusservice.com wrote in message news:2487477A-0722-4E58-932B-D0B9B911F75E@specialbusservice.com... [snip]
Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images helpful? Upload more than a few and its no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
I'm sorry, did some Deity declare a hard limit on the number of unique images in the universe while I wasn't looking?
If you were to upload one fair use image per day, complying properly with the rules for each one, you would have 365 after a year, having broken no laws.
HTH HAND
On 1/17/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Justin Cormack" justin@specialbusservice.com wrote in message news:2487477A-0722-4E58-932B-D0B9B911F75E@specialbusservice.com... [snip]
Helpful? In what way is uploading hundreds of fair use images helpful? Upload more than a few and its no longer fair use its wholesale copying, and quite obviously illegal.
I'm sorry, did some Deity declare a hard limit on the number of unique images in the universe while I wasn't looking?
Sure it depends on the size,resolution and number of bits per pixel of the image. A 100 pixel by 100 pixel area that allows either black or white pixels limits you to 2^10,000 images (in realilty the highest amount that most people would accept as different is about a quater of that number)
-- geni
On 17 Jan 2006, at 17:26, Phil Boswell wrote:
If you were to upload one fair use image per day, complying properly with the rules for each one, you would have 365 after a year, having broken no laws.
Not if they were from the same source.
I can use one sentence of your book as fair use, but if I use them all one at a time its not fair use any more, as I have copied the entire book.
Similarly one Playboy magazine cover is probably ok, but the number we have probably isnt.
Fair use has to be considered as a whole.
Justinc
On 1/18/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
Not if they were from the same source.
Which you did not state originally, which made your whole argument rather different. Without that statement, you were saying that you believed anyone who had uploaded many fair use images was in breach of copyright law, no matter the circumstances.
-Matt
I'm not sure about this. If it is fair use in one instance, it should be fair use in all instances. I don't think there is a legal difference between having one fair use magazine cover and having 200, providing each use meets the fair use standards. In cases where multiple-sources from a single copyright holder were held not to be fair use (i.e. Twin Peaks) it was because the sum collection of the uses really did take away from the use of the original source (i.e. was basically a detailed plot abridgment and could be read without watching the shows). I don't think that's the same thing as using a large number of completely separate magazine or DVD covers. At least, that's my understanding of it.
FF
On 1/18/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006, at 17:26, Phil Boswell wrote:
If you were to upload one fair use image per day, complying properly with the rules for each one, you would have 365 after a year, having broken no laws.
Not if they were from the same source.
I can use one sentence of your book as fair use, but if I use them all one at a time its not fair use any more, as I have copied the entire book.
Similarly one Playboy magazine cover is probably ok, but the number we have probably isnt.
Fair use has to be considered as a whole.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18 Jan 2006, at 14:55, Fastfission wrote:
I'm not sure about this. If it is fair use in one instance, it should be fair use in all instances. I don't think there is a legal difference between having one fair use magazine cover and having 200, providing each use meets the fair use standards. In cases where multiple-sources from a single copyright holder were held not to be fair use (i.e. Twin Peaks) it was because the sum collection of the uses really did take away from the use of the original source (i.e. was basically a detailed plot abridgment and could be read without watching the shows). I don't think that's the same thing as using a large number of completely separate magazine or DVD covers. At least, that's my understanding of it.
Copying will always be considered by the court __as a whole__. Thats very clear.
With magazine covers, if we had say downloaded (made up example; I havent looked into where they came from) the Official Playboy Magazine Cover website and stuck them all in wikipedia then we would be liable - we would be taking advertising revenue from their website thus causing damages. Regardless of the amount of important critical commentary we make on them.
CD covers even in thumbnail form now have commercial value en masse, for marketing purposes.
Of course there isnt much case law yet, anything could happen. IANAL. I expect we shall hear from a lawyer soon.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
With magazine covers, if we had say downloaded (made up example; I havent looked into where they came from) the Official Playboy Magazine Cover website and stuck them all in wikipedia then we would be liable - we would be taking advertising revenue from their website thus causing damages. Regardless of the amount of important critical commentary we make on them.
In theory yes, in practice the fair-use images are still pretty thinly spread over our 900K+ articles. In my cleaning-out work on the generic fair-use category I've only seen a handful of articles that have more than one or two fair-use images, and they tend to be articles on Pokemon characters and the like, where several stubly articles have been merged into one (as per a common practice for fictional characters).
Right now I think we're still in the process of figuring out much we have and documenting the copyright holders. (The now-deprecated category of generic fair-use images still has many thousands of images left in it.) Once that's under control, I think we'll be in a better position to focus on articles and areas that have excessive numbers of copyrighted images. It wouldn't hurt to start a discussion in the fair use wikiproject now, since it will likely take a while to develop consensus on a good objective standard.
Stan
On 18 Jan 2006, at 19:46, Stan Shebs wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
With magazine covers, if we had say downloaded (made up example; I havent looked into where they came from) the Official Playboy Magazine Cover website and stuck them all in wikipedia then we would be liable - we would be taking advertising revenue from their website thus causing damages. Regardless of the amount of important critical commentary we make on them.
In theory yes, in practice the fair-use images are still pretty thinly spread over our 900K+ articles. In my cleaning-out work on the generic fair-use category I've only seen a handful of articles that have more than one or two fair-use images, and they tend to be articles on Pokemon characters and the like, where several stubly articles have been merged into one (as per a common practice for fictional characters).
They are spread by article but not by topic. For example we have images of (probably) all pokemon characters, but they arent all in one article.
Right now I think we're still in the process of figuring out much we have and documenting the copyright holders. (The now-deprecated category of generic fair-use images still has many thousands of images left in it.) Once that's under control, I think we'll be in a better position to focus on articles and areas that have excessive numbers of copyrighted images. It wouldn't hurt to start a discussion in the fair use wikiproject now, since it will likely take a while to develop consensus on a good objective standard.
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Justinc
On 1/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Justinc
With the practice runs we have had from clearing other catigories I think we could delete every fair use image without too much trouble.
-- geni
On 19 Jan 2006, at 00:38, geni wrote:
On 1/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Justinc
With the practice runs we have had from clearing other catigories I think we could delete every fair use image without too much trouble.
You think so?
Which practice runs?
Justinc
On 1/19/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
You think so?
Which practice runs?
Justinc
With permission images would probably be the largest we have delt with so far.
-- geni
Justin Cormack wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia.
I thought it was userboxes that were going to destroy Wikipedia? Or was it AfD?
I tend to be pretty sanguine about project destruction myself, seeing as how I'm getting paid to work on GNU software (whose failure has been predicted many times) by Apple Computer, which has been about to go out of business for some 27 years now...
Stan
Justin Cormack wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia.
I don't think that it's as dramatic as that.
I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Of course. But if the fair use images are properly marked it should be easy to remove them from the fork.
Ec
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
Regards, Haukur
On 19 Jan 2006, at 10:12, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
I have no problem with fair use of text in wikipedia.
Fair use of images is just a morass of copyright violation. In theory it would be ok to allow some, but clearly that cant happen until we get rid of all the rubbish claimed as "fair use" now, none of which is.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006, at 10:12, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
I have no problem with fair use of text in wikipedia.
Fair use of images is just a morass of copyright violation. In theory it would be ok to allow some, but clearly that cant happen until we get rid of all the rubbish claimed as "fair use" now, none of which is.
I at least have no problem in agreeing that there is a big difference between fair use and many claims of fair use. Perhaps we just need a clearer way to distinguish between the two.
Ec
On 1/19/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
Regards, Haukur
Short quotes of text also tend to be the kind of fair dealing which is broadly accepted by all countries and is essentially indistinguishable from "not copyrighted".
Fair use, in general, is a whole different beast.
Anthony
Short quotes of text also tend to be the kind of fair dealing which is broadly accepted by all countries and is essentially indistinguishable from "not copyrighted".
Perhaps. Certainly no-one will object that a particular article contains, say, a short quote from a particular Bible translation. But when you pile up articles like that in an organized way you essentially enable people to read the whole translation. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:1
Read the KJV translation of the verse. Then click on next verse and the read the KJV translation of that. Proceed until you run out of verses.
I understand that the copyright of the KJV is enforced in Britain. Would this series of articles be in violation of British law? Mostly an academic question, I think, but you get my point. It's probably no coincidence that the translations chosen for this Bible verse project are (almost everywhere) in the public domain.
- - -
A few months back we established here on the mailing list that our use of this featured picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
is in violation of British law. In fact a great many images where we rely on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. could not be legally used in a Wikipedia published outside of the United States of America.
A Wikipedia which restricted itself to content which is free to use by everyone in every jurisdiction would have to let go of a lot of good stuff. It would be a very painful sacrifice and I doubt it would be worth it.
My guess is that the blasted GFDL is currently causing more problems for reuse than fair use content is.
Regards, Haukur
On 19 Jan 2006, at 14:33, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Short quotes of text also tend to be the kind of fair dealing which is broadly accepted by all countries and is essentially indistinguishable from "not copyrighted".
Perhaps. Certainly no-one will object that a particular article contains, say, a short quote from a particular Bible translation. But when you pile up articles like that in an organized way you essentially enable people to read the whole translation. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:1
Read the KJV translation of the verse. Then click on next verse and the read the KJV translation of that. Proceed until you run out of verses.
I understand that the copyright of the KJV is enforced in Britain. Would this series of articles be in violation of British law? Mostly an academic question, I think, but you get my point. It's probably no coincidence that the translations chosen for this Bible verse project are (almost everywhere) in the public domain.
Yes, using the KJV is a big problem. Its a rather strange anomoly of British law. Importing the KJV is illegal. I would discourage them from using it.
A few months back we established here on the mailing list that our use of this featured picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
is in violation of British law. In fact a great many images where we rely on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. could not be legally used in a Wikipedia published outside of the United States of America.
Jimbo has said that he would like to be sued so that something like Bridgeman can be tried in the UK. I would expect it to be ok.
A Wikipedia which restricted itself to content which is free to use by everyone in every jurisdiction would have to let go of a lot of good stuff. It would be a very painful sacrifice and I doubt it would be worth it.
Thats not necessary - so long as stuff is tagged so that anyone say making printed copies in a particular jurisdiction can remove stuff.
Justinc
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Short quotes of text also tend to be the kind of fair dealing which is broadly accepted by all countries and is essentially indistinguishable from "not copyrighted".
Perhaps. Certainly no-one will object that a particular article contains, say, a short quote from a particular Bible translation. But when you pile up articles like that in an organized way you essentially enable people to read the whole translation. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:1
Read the KJV translation of the verse. Then click on next verse and the read the KJV translation of that. Proceed until you run out of verses.
I understand that the copyright of the KJV is enforced in Britain. Would this series of articles be in violation of British law? Mostly an academic question, I think, but you get my point. It's probably no coincidence that the translations chosen for this Bible verse project are (almost everywhere) in the public domain.
A few months back we established here on the mailing list that our use of this featured picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
is in violation of British law. In fact a great many images where we rely on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. could not be legally used in a Wikipedia published outside of the United States of America.
A Wikipedia which restricted itself to content which is free to use by everyone in every jurisdiction would have to let go of a lot of good stuff. It would be a very painful sacrifice and I doubt it would be worth it.
We are already not allowed to have photos of the Louvre and other buildings in France. This is the price we pay for Free content; if you want to excercise Free Speech, use Tor or Freenet...
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
We are already not allowed to have photos of the Louvre and other buildings in France. This is the price we pay for Free content; if you want to excercise Free Speech, use Tor or Freenet...
This seems like an extreme point of view.
That we aren't allowed photos of the Louvre? IIRC they were deleted from Commons some months ago, because fr: uses Commons, meaning that potentially copyvio pictures were viewable on a site targeted to the juridstiction where the copyvio was taking place.
That if you want to exercise Free Speech, don't use Wikipedia? You should read [[WP:NOT]] some time.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
We are already not allowed to have photos of the Louvre and other buildings in France. This is the price we pay for Free content; if you want to excercise Free Speech, use Tor or Freenet...
This seems like an extreme point of view.
That we aren't allowed photos of the Louvre? IIRC they were deleted from Commons some months ago, because fr: uses Commons, meaning that potentially copyvio pictures were viewable on a site targeted to the juridstiction where the copyvio was taking place.
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their pictures as they see fit. In case you don't know it the Louvre is more than 70 years old. Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
That if you want to exercise Free Speech, don't use Wikipedia? You should read [[WP:NOT]] some time.
What the hell has this got to do with it? Your Free Speech crusade is not relevant.
Ec
On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their pictures as they see fit. In case you don't know it the Louvre is more than 70 years old. Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a problem in french law.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their pictures as they see fit. In case you don't know it the Louvre is more than 70 years old. Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a problem in french law.
OK, I can see where that would apply to the pyramid, but it should not apply to general photos of the Louvre itself.
Ec
On 21 Jan 2006, at 20:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their pictures as they see fit. In case you don't know it the Louvre is more than 70 years old. Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a problem in french law.
OK, I can see where that would apply to the pyramid, but it should not apply to general photos of the Louvre itself.
I think other photos should be fine, I think it was only the ones with the Pyramid that had a problem.
Mind you there seem to be plenty of pictures of the pyramid on commons too.
The also had a problem with the lighting on the Eiffel Tower.
Maybe they have just decided not to link from fr, not sure.
Justinc
On 1/21/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 20:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they were pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to license their pictures as they see fit. In case you don't know it the Louvre is more than 70 years old. Quit inventing ridiculous laws.
The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a problem in french law.
OK, I can see where that would apply to the pyramid, but it should not apply to general photos of the Louvre itself.
I think other photos should be fine, I think it was only the ones with the Pyramid that had a problem.
Mind you there seem to be plenty of pictures of the pyramid on commons too.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris.louvre.pyramid.250pix.jpg
Is this the pyramid you're talking about?
If so, it seems to be on Fr: as well, and has been since 22 november 2003.
The also had a problem with the lighting on the Eiffel Tower.
Maybe they have just decided not to link from fr, not sure.
Justinc
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
It's remarkable that many of these discussions about fair use too often tend to reduce the scope of the discussion to fair use images.
Ec
On 1/19/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
I was very involved in the fair use project until a few months ago when I realised that there was no hope and "fair use" will destroy wikipedia. I am now mostly contributing to commons and writing a few articles. I am still interested (when I get time) in writing tools to make it easier to fork a free version of wikipedia without fair use images.
Every other article I write quotes a copyrighted text (=fair use). You might have a hard time yanking that out :)
It's remarkable that many of these discussions about fair use too often tend to reduce the scope of the discussion to fair use images.
Ec
Mostly because for the most part people seem to understand how to use fair use text (it is a bit hard to write a legit encyopedia article that uses quotes in a way that is not fair use).
-- geni
I don't think that thumbnail CD covers really have any great value on the whole, and I think a court would be very suspicious of someone saying that the sheer number of thumbnails somehow made what was a set of separate "fair uses" into a massive, singular "unfair use". But I could of course be wrong, but that's my feeling on it.
FF
On 1/18/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006, at 14:55, Fastfission wrote:
I'm not sure about this. If it is fair use in one instance, it should be fair use in all instances. I don't think there is a legal difference between having one fair use magazine cover and having 200, providing each use meets the fair use standards. In cases where multiple-sources from a single copyright holder were held not to be fair use (i.e. Twin Peaks) it was because the sum collection of the uses really did take away from the use of the original source (i.e. was basically a detailed plot abridgment and could be read without watching the shows). I don't think that's the same thing as using a large number of completely separate magazine or DVD covers. At least, that's my understanding of it.
Copying will always be considered by the court __as a whole__. Thats very clear.
With magazine covers, if we had say downloaded (made up example; I havent looked into where they came from) the Official Playboy Magazine Cover website and stuck them all in wikipedia then we would be liable - we would be taking advertising revenue from their website thus causing damages. Regardless of the amount of important critical commentary we make on them.
CD covers even in thumbnail form now have commercial value en masse, for marketing purposes.
Of course there isnt much case law yet, anything could happen. IANAL. I expect we shall hear from a lawyer soon.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Suppose that an image can be considered fair use because it is used for educational purposes, say in the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where the image Image:Tianasquare.jpg
is said to be fair use under the following rationale:
The use of this historic photograph in Wikipedia is claimed to be a fair use of the image under United States copyright law for the following reasons: This photograph depicts a non-reproduceable historic event. The image is used for educational purposes only in a non-profit encyclopedia. The image is no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article. The use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright.
If you put that image on a user page, easy to imagine someone doing so, the the educational purpose which is the foundation of the fair use justification, vanishes.
That said, this is a tempest in a teapot in most cases. Except for rare instances, no one is complaining and there is a lot of bad feeling as getting after the fair use images on someone's user page feels like you are getting after them personally.
Fred
On Jan 18, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Fastfission wrote:
I'm not sure about this. If it is fair use in one instance, it should be fair use in all instances. I don't think there is a legal difference between having one fair use magazine cover and having 200, providing each use meets the fair use standards. In cases where multiple-sources from a single copyright holder were held not to be fair use (i.e. Twin Peaks) it was because the sum collection of the uses really did take away from the use of the original source (i.e. was basically a detailed plot abridgment and could be read without watching the shows). I don't think that's the same thing as using a large number of completely separate magazine or DVD covers. At least, that's my understanding of it.
FF
On 1/18/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 17 Jan 2006, at 17:26, Phil Boswell wrote:
If you were to upload one fair use image per day, complying properly with the rules for each one, you would have 365 after a year, having broken no laws.
Not if they were from the same source.
I can use one sentence of your book as fair use, but if I use them all one at a time its not fair use any more, as I have copied the entire book.
Similarly one Playboy magazine cover is probably ok, but the number we have probably isnt.
Fair use has to be considered as a whole.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18 Jan 2006, at 15:37, Fred Bauder wrote:
Suppose that an image can be considered fair use because it is used for educational purposes, say in the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where the image Image:Tianasquare.jpg
is said to be fair use under the following rationale:
The use of this historic photograph in Wikipedia is claimed to be a fair use of the image under United States copyright law for the following reasons: This photograph depicts a non-reproduceable historic event.
Copyright law says nothing about non reproducable historic events.
Justinc
On 1/18/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Suppose that an image can be considered fair use because it is used for educational purposes, say in the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where the image Image:Tianasquare.jpg
is said to be fair use under the following rationale:
The use of this historic photograph in Wikipedia is claimed to be a fair use of the image under United States copyright law for the following reasons: This photograph depicts a non-reproduceable historic event. The image is used for educational purposes only in a non-profit encyclopedia. The image is no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article. The use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright.
If you put that image on a user page, easy to imagine someone doing so, the the educational purpose which is the foundation of the fair use justification, vanishes.
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
But anyway, what about the image page itself, i.e. [[Image:Tianasquare.jpg]]? Is *that* a use for educational purposes?
Of course, bad example, since Wikipedia has explicit permission to use that image.
That said, this is a tempest in a teapot in most cases. Except for rare instances, no one is complaining and there is a lot of bad feeling as getting after the fair use images on someone's user page feels like you are getting after them personally.
Fred
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
Please give me one example of where an image (any image) on a userpage is educational.
-- Sam
On 1/18/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
Please give me one example of where an image (any image) on a userpage is educational.
-- Sam
Can I give an example of an image that used to be on a userpage, but was deleted?
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
That's educational, and it's fair use, and the image was deleted.
Anthony
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
That's educational, and it's fair use, and the image was deleted.
OK. That use probably is educational, and probably is fair use.
Of course, it's an entirely different matter to ask whether Wikipedia should allow fair use in userpages. A good reason not to would be the extreme difficulty in deciding, in each instance, what is and what isn't fair use. It is far easier, and in my opinion better, to err on the side of caution and not allow any such images.
Users with your legal knowledge are not in great supply (see Raul's laws).
-- Sam
On 1/18/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
That's educational, and it's fair use, and the image was deleted.
OK. That use probably is educational, and probably is fair use.
Of course, it's an entirely different matter to ask whether Wikipedia should allow fair use in userpages. A good reason not to would be the extreme difficulty in deciding, in each instance, what is and what isn't fair use. It is far easier, and in my opinion better, to err on the side of caution and not allow any such images.
You're right, whether or not it's fair use is a different question as to whether or not Wikipedia should allow fair use. I was only discussing the former.
As for the latter, I don't really think it matters, so long as people are made aware of the rule. If I had known about such a rule before uploading the image, I never would have done so.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
If it's articleworthy, put it in an article. If not, why have it on WP at all? Put it on your own website and reference it.
Stan
On 1/18/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
If it's articleworthy, put it in an article. If not, why have it on WP at all? Put it on your own website and reference it.
Stan
I'm not sure it was ready for an article. And I would have put it up on my own website, except that I misplaced my copy and the one on Wikipedia was deleted.
Anyway, I'm not complaining about it not being kept in Wikipedia. I merely brought it up as an example which I was asked to provide.
Anthony
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/18/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
Please give me one example of where an image (any image) on a userpage is educational.
-- Sam
Can I give an example of an image that used to be on a userpage, but was deleted?
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
That's educational, and it's fair use, and the image was deleted.
That image was deleted because it was being used to make a specific challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image. It wasn't educational, it was civil disobedience.
Kelly
On 1/18/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/18/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
Please give me one example of where an image (any image) on a userpage is educational.
-- Sam
Can I give an example of an image that used to be on a userpage, but was deleted?
I had on my userpage a photo I took from the top of a lighthouse in New Jersey. Next to it I had an image I created using Google Earth which attempted to reproduce that photo. I had a couple of lines of text about how the two were created.
That's educational, and it's fair use, and the image was deleted.
That image was deleted because it was being used to make a specific challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image. It wasn't educational, it was civil disobedience.
Kelly
The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been up there for months. In fact, the image itself didn't even include a claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to make such an obviously specious claim.
Anthony
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/18/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
It may or may not vanish, depending whether or not you use the image on that user page for educational purposes.
Please give me one example of where an image (any image) on a userpage is educational.
It's better not to get hung up on "educational". The relevant wording is "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research ..." There are other purposes there, any one of which could qualify the material as fair use. The words "such as" in particular suggest that this is not an exclusive list; there could be other purposes.
Ec