Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
But there's a huge difference between an image being the only one of its kind we can get under any circumstances, and being the only image some editor is able to get a hold of.
In the past, even with Wikipedia-only permissions discouraged, far too many users have thought it sufficient just to ask for permission without asking for permission under a free license. Allowing this would encourage people to be even more lazy about getting free images.
I profoundly disagree. Anyone going to the trouble of asking for permission to use an image *is not being lazy*. The lazy thing to do is to slap a fair-use tag on the image and don't bother about trying to get permission
"Fair use" is laziness too in many cases. But my point was that if you're going to the trouble of asking for permission, which is otherwise commendable, it is lazy and counterproductive not to take the very simple step of asking for permission *under a free license*.
Wikipedia is a project to create a free encyclopedia, with "free" as in free content. Right now we are admittedly imperfect at ensuring that our content is truly free in that sense. Encouraging people to go out and get more restrictive content, such as images with Wikipedia-only permission, undermines the effort to make Wikipedia more free. If somebody asks for permission for an image under a free license and gets turned down, I'd be happy to consider whether it might be appropriate to use that image based on a more limited permission, plus fair use.
--Michael Snow
Michael wrote:
"Fair use" is laziness too in many cases. But my point was that if you're going to the trouble of asking for permission, which is otherwise commendable, it is lazy and counterproductive not to take the very simple step of asking for permission *under a free license*.
Indeed. In each case we should ask for as wide a permission as possible. I think everyone agrees on that.
Encouraging people to go out and get more restrictive content, such as images with Wikipedia-only permission, undermines the effort to make Wikipedia more free.
I agree. We should not encourage people to obtain such images. They should only be used as a last resort.
If somebody asks for permission for an image under a free license and gets turned down, I'd be happy to consider whether it might be appropriate to use that image based on a more limited permission, plus fair use.
I don't see how fair-use is even relevant if we already have a permission to use a given image. If it is meant as a hint for the downstream users then I don't think it is a very helpful one. They will have to evaluate each non-free image for themselves anyhow.
But, more importantly, you agree with me that it is useful for us to have a limited permission to use a given image when a wider permission can not be obtained.
Doesn't it, then, strike you as counter-productive that the image upload screen currently says this?
****************************************************** * Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial * * use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" * * licence. Such files will be deleted * ******************************************************
- - -
This is not meant as an attack on anyone but I'm getting tired of some of the arguments used in this discussion. There seems to be a pervasive idea of "lazy" and stupid Wikipedians who have to be stopped from hurting the project with uncompromising policies that don't really make sense. This is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to trust the users and assume good faith.
We *can* have a nuanced policy to use used-with-permission images only rarely and when they are the only option. Being outright banned from doing so makes me feel like I'm being treated like a child.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Snow wrote:
"Fair use" is laziness too in many cases. But my point was that if you're going to the trouble of asking for permission, which is otherwise commendable, it is lazy and counterproductive not to take the very simple step of asking for permission *under a free license*.
Well, it's rare to get permission for GFDL licensing or whatever; I've managed to get loads of replies which are happy to give Wikipedia a licence, but will not be able to license under GFDL/CC-BY/etc. - dozens and dozens of them. Some of them, I noted, ended up just being grabbed and copied for fair use instead (by other users), which is more than just a little dispiriting.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
Well, it's rare to get permission for GFDL licensing or whatever; I've managed to get loads of replies which are happy to give Wikipedia a licence, but will not be able to license under GFDL/CC-BY/etc. - dozens and dozens of them.
Indeed. To get someone to license under the GFDL you have to sell them a whole ideology which they may never have heard of before. This is usually not possible when the person on the other end represents an organization (museum, laboratory etc.).
While many people are happy to give Wikipedia a license they are hesitant to give out a general license and often don't understand why we're asking for one. This is understandable considering that what we're asking would allow the images to be used to e.g. advertise drugs or decorate political propaganda. If you're not already sold on GNU ideology you'll find this hard to swallow - much safer to dole out permissions one by one.
What I think is probably most effective is not to try to explain the GFDL or CC licenses and instead ask them to agree to one of the following:
"Anyone can use this image for any purpose."
"Anyone can use this image for any purpose as long as it is attributed to us."
"Anyone can use this image for encyclopedia articles and other educational purposes."
"Anyone can use this image for encyclopedia articles and other educational purposes as long as it is attributed to us."
- - -
This is simple enough and clear enough for people to agree to and it is still good enough for us and most of our downstream users.
To use one of the examples I keep coming back to we can probably get the [[Z machine]] picture under the last license. We already have this:
"encyclopedia articles are fine. We only require a credit in the form, 'Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories,'"
I don't think we'll ever get it under a GFDL license, though, or even a CC-BY license.
Some of them, I noted, ended up just being grabbed and copied for fair use instead (by other users), which is more than just a little dispiriting.
I feel your pain.
Regards, Haukur
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
James D. Forrester wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
"Fair use" is laziness too in many cases. But my point was that if you're going to the trouble of asking for permission, which is otherwise commendable, it is lazy and counterproductive not to take the very simple step of asking for permission *under a free license*.
Well, it's rare to get permission for GFDL licensing or whatever; I've managed to get loads of replies which are happy to give Wikipedia a licence, but will not be able to license under GFDL/CC-BY/etc. - dozens and dozens of them. Some of them, I noted, ended up just being grabbed and copied for fair use instead (by other users), which is more than just a little dispiriting.
Unfortunately, the biggest hurdle seems to be the commercial use aspect. I tried to obtain permission for a (what turned out to be unfree) Featured Picture. The image we had was a lower-resolution version of a very large, high-quality composite photo. Permission was refused solely on the basis that their photo could be used *by anyone who wanted to* for commercial purposes. People seem to be absolutely paranoid about copyright.
IANAL, and is seems that the people we commonly ask permission from are in the same position.
- -- 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