Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The single most important factor for a fair use analysis is the impact of the use on the market for the original
If you're relying on Harper & Row for this proposition, you need to recognize that Campbell v. Acuff-Rose effectively undermines it, both on the facts and in the language of the decision. Its analysis is much closer to weighing the factors equally.
In my opinion even images on user pages should be given a little bit of leeway for this reason. An image which isn't included in any of the articles isn't really in the encyclopedia itself, it's in a temporary workspace which we use to create an encyclopedia.
It's in a workspace that we publish to the entire world over the internet. And don't kid yourself about the temporary here; try removing an inappropriate image from somebody's user page and see how temporary they thought it should be. While I am perfectly happy to be flexible about more restrictive licensing for user page images (no-derivatives or Wikipedia-specific permission), I have yet to see anyone articulate a reasonable argument as to why a copyrighted image would be fair use on a user page.
--Michael Snow
On 10/21/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
The single most important factor for a fair use analysis is the impact of the use on the market for the original
If you're relying on Harper & Row for this proposition, you need to recognize that Campbell v. Acuff-Rose effectively undermines it, both on the facts and in the language of the decision. Its analysis is much closer to weighing the factors equally.
That's useful information, though I still don't think it changes the fact that less distribution is much more likely to be fair use than more distribution.
In
my opinion even images on user pages should be given a little bit of
leeway
for this reason. An image which isn't included in any of the articles
isn't
really in the encyclopedia itself, it's in a temporary workspace which we use to create an encyclopedia.
It's in a workspace that we publish to the entire world over the internet.
I'd argue with your use of the word "publish" in this regard, but yes, we are involved in distributing even the user pages quite broadly. That's why copyright comes into play in the first place.
And don't kid yourself about the temporary here; try removing
an inappropriate image from somebody's user page and see how temporary they thought it should be.
I've had images of mine pulled right out from under me, and trust me, it sucks. But it's still not the same as removing the image from the encyclopedia itself.
While I am perfectly happy to be flexible
about more restrictive licensing for user page images (no-derivatives or Wikipedia-specific permission), I have yet to see anyone articulate a reasonable argument as to why a copyrighted image would be fair use on a user page.
Same reasons as any other page. For example, I had taken a photograph from the top of the [[Cape May Point Lighthouse]]. I created a subpage of my userpage which compared that photograph with the same image as output by Google Earth. Now that image was a derivative of an aerial photo which the State of New Jersey claims copyright on, but it's a clear case of fair use. It's highly transformative, it doesn't affect the market for the underlying satellite photos at all, it's being used for the purposes of commenting on Google Earth, and the copyright on the work itself is rather dubious in light of the fact that there is very little creativity involved in its production. I disagree that we should ever factor in Wikipedia-specific permission, though. There's too much tempation to settle for Wikipedia-specific permission when we could have just as easily gotten worldwide permission.
--Michael Snow
Anthony