on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
-Matt
No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
Mgm
Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either - what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the four factors based on the evidence presented.
Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and they're not going to take advice from the adversary.
I also wanted to respond to your message on another thread, MGM:
You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone else put in an article. Too many people know too little about copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually exercise fair use as much as images do.
I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so I will understand it for you."
Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:
Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search. Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're all there.
We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like they have before.
Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)
[[User:Kwh]]
On 25 Mar 2006, at 19:18, KWH wrote:
Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:
Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search. Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're all there.
We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like they have before.
Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)
Its fine. Except google dont keep permanent archived copies of the images and pretend they "own" them. If we accepted externallt linked images it would be ok. But for good reasons we dont.
Justinc
To be honest, I don't see this happening even if its an interesing idea. What is 'fair use' for Wikipedia to copy and use in an article will probably not be 'fair use' for a commercial organisation like Google to store and make money out of.
There's really nothing in this for Google either - unless we are going to put AdSense ads in Wikipedia (resulting in a mass exodus of editors) all they really get from it is the goodwill from being associated with Wikipedia - and since the chances are that only Wikipedia editors would be aware that the fairuse images were hosted by Google, any goodwill amongst the wider public would be fairly close to nil.
In short, theres nothing in it for Wikipedia or Google, so although it is an original idea I just don't think it'll fly
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006, at 19:18, KWH wrote:
Here's a 'modest proposal', while I'm at it:
Wikipedia should partner with MajorSearchProvider (Google, for sake of example). Have the en image archive merge with Google Image Search. Since so many of these fair use images probably come from people going to Google Image Search and searching for the topic, wham - now they're all there.
We all get good PR from the connection. Wikipedians can diligently tag and cat images, adding to the value of Google's search. Sources are implicit, and google's spider can probably make a good hash of extracting the copyright terms from the page. Google's lawyers can make the call on any technical measures which need to happen to meet fair use - e.g. automatically resizing to thumbnails, restricting certain images due to legal takedown notices. In event of the "big lawsuit", Google can use their trillions of dollars to defend it like they have before.
Now that I've stated it, I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but does it spur any ideas? (other than that I'm nucking futs?)
Its fine. Except google dont keep permanent archived copies of the images and pretend they "own" them. If we accepted externallt linked images it would be ok. But for good reasons we dont.
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KWH wrote:
on 3/24/06, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Fair enough. Is it required that the original uploader provide the fair use rationale, or can someone else? If we require the original uploader, that might be a problem. If you're not the original uploader, but provide a rationale, are you thereby assuming responsibility for a copyright lawsuit?
-Matt
No, because if you add a proper rationale there won't be a lawsuit.
Mgm
Incorrect. There will be a lawsuit if someone representing a copyright holder decides to file court papers. It's really that simple. The existence of the rationale changes nothing, and it's likely that the defendant in such a suit would use a different rationale crafted by their own lawyer as defense. And that rationale doesn't matter either
- what matters is what the judge determines is the disposition of the
four factors based on the evidence presented.
Consider this - the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the fair use are going to be facially obvious to the copyright holder - or at least their view of it. If they are fuming angry after seeing their work being used on Wikipedia, and they talk to their lawyer, then having a detailed rationale on the image description page isn't going to suddenly enlighten them. Nor is it going to sway the lawyer's advice to them on whether to file suit - they're going to make their recommendation based on potential for a successful outcome, and they're not going to take advice from the adversary.
I agree. But not all suits are filed as a result of a rational analysis of possible outcomes. Some lawsuits are the result of some individual who gets it into his head that there is a point of principle to be made, even when the damages that could be recovered are considerably less than the legal costs. What a lot of copyright paranoiacs seem to ignore is the number of steps between the time the copyright owner notices the alleged infringement, and the time that a trial judge gives a decision. There are many opportunities on the way for either party to withdraw without any significant damage to anyone.
You can't expect someone to take responsibility for an picture someone else put in an article. Too many people know too little about copyright law or are just completely ignorant.
But that's exactly what we're doing every day when we edit - we're authors. This should be viewed as an ennobling thing for editors; our contributions are more significant than some comment on slashdot, as example. Let's not forget that our textual contributions usually exercise fair use as much as images do.
I also don't care much for arguments that presuppose ignorance of the mass of people and a nanny mentality of "you don't understand this, so I will understand it for you."
Absolutely. It's a favorite argument of politicians.
Ec