Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/27/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Silas Snider wrote:
Except when process protects us from (potentially
lenghty and costly)
legal proceedings. Without a tag, it is not clear whether we have the
right to even host the image.
It would be nice if people who put up these claims about protecting us
had half a clue about what they are saying. Such legal proceedings are
always possible no matter what we do. So too is winning the big prize
in a national lottery. If you sign a binding agreement to donate 50% of
that prize to WMF when you win it, I would suggest that the Board not
make that eventuality a prominent part of its future plans.
Of course, it's always possible to be sued no matter what we do...
thus we should not do anything to decrease the probability of lawsuit!
It's all so simple!
Decreasing the probability of a lawsuit is certainly appropriate. The
question is more one of at what probability level does the law of
diminishing returns set in.
On a more serious note...
It does make sense to permit some things which will never be a risk or
a problem. The problem is that with thousands of users, for any
instance there is someone who doesn't see a problem with it. My
favorite, although old, example is Raul654 arguing that a cover
recording of [[Alanis Morissette]]s Ironic [[Ironic (song)]] was
public domain.
Permissive as my views may be, that would not extend to making a PD
claim unless it was based on facts.
As a result, we can't simple accept all members of
the community
carrying the ability to make exceptions. To me this seems like a
hard problem.
It depends on what kind of exception. It would probably be yes when
it's a question of a picture of one's own self. Beyond that, a
rationale based on some knowledge of law and facts should be a mandatory
precondition in most cases.
I oppose this image being claimed as fair use on
English Wikipedia in
the Wikipedia: namespace. I'd rather a {{Because Erik Said So}}
template be created, if we're going to grant Erik the ability to
unilateral ignore our requirements for image in the Wikipedia
namespace.
I don't see "Because X said so" as an acceptable fair use rationale.
It is important that in the process of allowing
exceptions
for obviously harmless things that we do not undo the work of others
who have worked so hard to keep unacceptable material out.
Policies can change. The nature of what we call "free" can change. You
win some; you lose some. There is no need for them to take this personally.
The unfree
image of Tim Starling we hosted on his user page easily caused months
of additional work in reducing unfree images in userspace because it
was frequently cited as a counter example, prolonging uncomfortable
disagreements.
I didn't participate in that discussion, but I'm sure that his opinion
on that should have been highly influential.
Of course this is not a matter of legal peril... it is,
rather, a
matter of commitment to our goal of free content. I hope that when I
die no one insults my contribution to Wikipedia by increasing the
number of non-free images we have by uploading non-free images of me
to all our projects, especially ones where my only interactions were
interlanguage links.
You won't be in a position to complain.
