New subject: Non-free images, there has to be a better way

9 Jul 2005

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

Re: Non-free images, there has to be a better way