Jimmy Wales wrote:
I officially pronounce that as of June 30, 2004, content which we are using _solely_ by virtue of non-free licenses should be removed from Wikipedia.
Thank you, most sincerely.
This decree is only about non-free licenses _as a justification_ for images being on Wikipedia, and does not comment on, nor affect, evolving doctrine on "fair use". Fair use is good *and bad* for entirely different reasons, and that's a whole set of issues that remains to be fully worked out. For the time being, I think we should rely on fair use, because it's a good thing, but cautiously so.
We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy, wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload? They can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of deletion.
And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people to try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution. (I'm not asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
--Jimbo
Michael Snow writes:
For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use",
the Berne Convention
requires that the source of the work be mentioned.
A clarification I'd like: does *US copyright law* require the source be mentioned? Or is it the Berne Convention that requires it?
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use",
the Berne Convention
requires that the source of the work be mentioned.
A clarification I'd like: does *US copyright law* require the source be mentioned? Or is it the Berne Convention that requires it?
Does it matter? If the United States has ratified the Berne Convention, then international law would have it that its provisions override contrary provisions in US domestic law. Nevertheless, the United States has often made the claim in many areas that the opposite is true, much to the annoyance of other nations.
Whatever the law, citing sources remains a desirable practice. The ability to trace a submission is the strongest evidence that we can have for establishing our rights to do what we do.
Ec
Matthew Brown wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use",
the Berne Convention
requires that the source of the work be mentioned.
A clarification I'd like: does *US copyright law* require the source be mentioned? Or is it the Berne Convention that requires it?
To my knowledge, and I am not a lawyer, it is only the Berne Convention that requires it. However, that's really a moot point -- we need not do it just to comply with the law -- it's good scholarly practice in any event, and that's reason enough.
--Jimbo