In a message dated 3/1/2008 5:39:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The author is free to release the image under a free license should they wish to do so.>>
-- Or since we have 200K non-free images, they are also free to cite a fair-use critieria.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Whatever criteria the author is free to cite (and that is a subject you don't seem too familiar with)... The author didn't cite it. Someone can't go back and say "I'm going to release this under, uh, this rationale because I'm guessing maybe thats what the author wants." If you are the author of something, then only you have the right to authorize its use or release it to the public. Its quite simple.
You seem to think fair use is a blanket excuse for using non-free content. Under the law, you might be correct. Under the WMF rules for EDPs, and the en.Wikipedia EDP... That is wrong. Its wrong now, its been wrong for awhile, and it will continue to be wrong for awhile longer. If you disagree, try to get the policy changed. Arguing that the policy is something other than what it actually is... Well, its a waste of your time and ours.
On Saturday 01 March 2008 20:13, Nathan wrote:
If you are the author of something, then only you have the right to authorize its use or release it to the public. Its quite simple.
It's also quite wrong.
What matters is not who the author is, but rather who owns the rights to the work.
Because fair use is a rationale for using someone elses work, not your own. If you want to use your own work on Wikipedia, you license it for use (i.e. you allow a specific type of use and reuse, either free, restricted, whatever). Fair use doesn't apply if you own the rights.
Kurt, its not really wrong. If you are an author, but working for an employer who has a claim to your intellectual output - you are still the agent authorizing use of your work. Its correct that you can be the author and not have rights to specific material at a given time, there are many circumstances under which this is true. But the original designation of rights is generally yours.
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2008 5:39:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice@gmail.com writes:
The author is free to release the image under a free license should they wish to do so.>>
--
Or since we have 200K non-free images, they are also free to cite a fair-use critieria.
Fair use doesn't work like that (okey I admit I'm not totaly certain what would happen since no one is yet to take such a monumentally stupid case to court). You appear to think that fair use is some magic incarnation that can make all your copyright issues go away it does not. If fact it makes them worse. Fair use is hard. It is case law rather than statute law driven. That means that not only are their vast grey areas but there are random islands of black and white in the greyness that you are unlikely to know about. On top of that rather a lot of it is subject to change without warning.
Now it is possible to cope with all this but so far you have failed to demonstrate the level of knowledge that suggests you could do so.
Now thats fine. Wikipedia accepts that most people don't know that much about copyright law so we work around it. We try and create a system people can follow which is where the bureaucracy comes from.
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
geni wrote:
...You appear to think that fair use is some magic incarnation that can make all your copyright issues go away it does not. If fact it makes them worse. Fair use is hard. It is case law rather than statute law driven. That means that not only are their vast grey areas but there are random islands of black and white in the greyness that you are unlikely to know about.
Well, that's not even the whole problem. Fair use is pretty easy to understand. But even someone who understands copyright and fair use quite well is likely to have trouble understanding Wikipedia's system, because Wikipedia holds itself to a much stricter standard than fair use otherwise allows.
On top of that rather a lot of it is subject to change without warning.
Indeed.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 02:20:22AM +0000, geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2008 5:39:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice@gmail.com writes:
The author is free to release the image under a free license should they wish to do so.>>
--
Or since we have 200K non-free images, they are also free to cite a fair-use critieria.
Fair use doesn't work like that (okey I admit I'm not totaly certain what would happen since no one is yet to take such a monumentally stupid case to court). You appear to think that fair use is some magic incarnation that can make all your copyright issues go away it does not. If fact it makes them worse. Fair use is hard. It is case law rather than statute law driven. That means that not only are their vast grey areas but there are random islands of black and white in the greyness that you are unlikely to know about. On top of that rather a lot of it is subject to change without warning.
Now it is possible to cope with all this but so far you have failed to demonstrate the level of knowledge that suggests you could do so.
Now thats fine. Wikipedia accepts that most people don't know that much about copyright law so we work around it. We try and create a system people can follow which is where the bureaucracy comes from.
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
Maybe I am one of those people who does not understand this.
If I had an article on WP and I uploaded an image of me and put it on my article claiming fair use, what is the problem? First, I am not going to sue. Second, it can not then be used by any Tom, Dick or Harry anywhere they like, which would have been the case if I had uploaded using the GFDL or into the public domain. I can see lots of reasons why I might want to do that.
If this is not possible, how could I achieve this outcome - it goes on my page with my approval but nowhere else?
I am assuming that fair use is OK in general. I could upload an image from anyway of a person and put it on their article under fair use, could I not? Is'nt that one of the criteria for fair use?
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/03/2008, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Maybe I am one of those people who does not understand this.
If I had an article on WP and I uploaded an image of me and put it on my article claiming fair use, what is the problem? First, I am not going to sue.
You get knocked down and killed by a bus tomorrow. Will whoever inherits sue?
Secondly I don't believe you. I think you will sue when someone creates what you think is a derivative work such as say modifying the article you put it in. Trust but verify and in this case I can't verify.
Second, it can not then be used by any Tom, Dick or Harry anywhere they like, which would have been the case if I had uploaded using the GFDL or into the public domain. I can see lots of reasons why I might want to do that.
So can I. However you are on the wrong project. Geocities is that way.
If this is not possible, how could I achieve this outcome - it goes on my page with my approval but nowhere else?
By starting your own website or using the free web host of your choice.
I am assuming that fair use is OK in general. I could upload an image from anyway of a person and put it on their article under fair use, could I not? Is'nt that one of the criteria for fair use?
Fails wikipedia's replaceability test and in any case would likely be considered a rather weak fair use case by the courts.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 02:43:31AM +0000, geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Maybe I am one of those people who does not understand this.
If I had an article on WP and I uploaded an image of me and put it on my article claiming fair use, what is the problem? First, I am not going to sue.
You get knocked down and killed by a bus tomorrow. Will whoever inherits sue?
Secondly I don't believe you. I think you will sue when someone creates what you think is a derivative work such as say modifying the article you put it in. Trust but verify and in this case I can't verify.
Second, it can not then be used by any Tom, Dick or Harry anywhere they like, which would have been the case if I had uploaded using the GFDL or into the public domain. I can see lots of reasons why I might want to do that.
So can I. However you are on the wrong project. Geocities is that way.
If this is not possible, how could I achieve this outcome - it goes on my page with my approval but nowhere else?
By starting your own website or using the free web host of your choice.
I am assuming that fair use is OK in general. I could upload an image from anyway of a person and put it on their article under fair use, could I not? Is'nt that one of the criteria for fair use?
Fails wikipedia's replaceability test and in any case would likely be considered a rather weak fair use case by the courts.
I am with you to here. You say a "rather weak fair use case" and I agree, but it not an impossible fair use case, so if I can do it for someone else, even if difficult, why can I not do it for myself? Not that I have an article, of course.
-- geni
Again - fair use implies you are utilizing a specific legal doctrine in order to justify using someone elses copyrighted work. If its your own copyrighted work, then fair use doesn't apply to uses that you specifically authorize.
Nathan
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:41:54PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
Again - fair use implies you are utilizing a specific legal doctrine in order to justify using someone elses copyrighted work. If its your own copyrighted work, then fair use doesn't apply to uses that you specifically authorize.
This all seems rather odd. I can ask my mate to upload my picture for my article (if I had one) but I can not do it myself. Duh.
Brian.
Nathan
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:41:54PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
Again - fair use implies you are utilizing a specific legal doctrine in order to justify using someone elses copyrighted work. If its your own copyrighted work, then fair use doesn't apply to uses that you specifically authorize.
This all seems rather odd. I can ask my mate to upload my picture for my article (if I had one) but I can not do it myself. Duh.
By "my picture" I presume you mean one of you rather than by you. We had some time back the case of a user who had himself photographed in front of a major European tourist attraction. IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online. Since it was a picture of him it was obvious that he did not take it himself. :-(
Ec
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:54:59PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:41:54PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
Again - fair use implies you are utilizing a specific legal doctrine in order to justify using someone elses copyrighted work. If its your own copyrighted work, then fair use doesn't apply to uses that you specifically authorize.
This all seems rather odd. I can ask my mate to upload my picture for my article (if I had one) but I can not do it myself. Duh.
By "my picture" I presume you mean one of you rather than by you. We had some time back the case of a user who had himself photographed in front of a major European tourist attraction. IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online. Since it was a picture of him it was obvious that he did not take it himself. :-(
Sure you can take a picture of yourself with timing devices on a camera. I understand the point above but this is not it. Also what about my wife takes the picture and then hands over all rights to me?
Ec
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Sure you can take a picture of yourself with timing devices on a camera. I understand the point above but this is not it. Also what about my wife takes the picture and then hands over all rights to me?
enwp and commons take reasonable claims of self-authorship on faith but refuse to take any claim of permission or rights transfer on faith in most cases.
This has sometimes been taken to ridiculous extremes, even though it's a reasonable rule in most cases (after all, we accept peoples' text contributions on faith as well).
-Matt
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:54:59PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 11:41:54PM -0500, Nathan wrote:
Again - fair use implies you are utilizing a specific legal doctrine in order to justify using someone elses copyrighted work. If its your own copyrighted work, then fair use doesn't apply to uses that you specifically authorize.
This all seems rather odd. I can ask my mate to upload my picture for my article (if I had one) but I can not do it myself. Duh.
By "my picture" I presume you mean one of you rather than by you. We had some time back the case of a user who had himself photographed in front of a major European tourist attraction. IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online. Since it was a picture of him it was obvious that he did not take it himself. :-(
Sure you can take a picture of yourself with timing devices on a camera. I understand the point above but this is not it. Also what about my wife takes the picture and then hands over all rights to me?
No problem except for the fact that we do have some people who seem to go out of their way to find an excuse for not hosting something or giving the law the most unfavorable reading they can imagine. Aside from those jurisdictions where a wife is a husband's property, or those like France where you cannot abandon your copyrights, you may still be required to prove that your wife granted you those rights. There are any number of scenarios that can be imagined to not make things work. If, for example you are in a same sex marriage in a country which properly recognize this, then move to another country which does not; if you then become widowed it is not clear that you would inherit copyrights from your partner automatically.
I very much approach law on the basis that you start from a position of wanting to accomplish something, and look to see if there is a defensible reading of the law to support this.
Ec
On 3/2/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
By "my picture" I presume you mean one of you rather than by you. We had some time back the case of a user who had himself photographed in front of a major European tourist attraction. IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online. Since it was a picture of him it was obvious that he did not take it himself. :-(
Now that's "wikilawyering".
On 02/03/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
By "my picture" I presume you mean one of you rather than by you. We had some time back the case of a user who had himself photographed in front of a major European tourist attraction. IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online. Since it was a picture of him it was obvious that he did not take it himself. :-(
Now that's "wikilawyering".
Indeed. But then, it's an example of why we're so damn paranoid about licensing, copyright and so on - the threat model for freely-licensed content is an assertion of copyright violation by an insane vindictive asshole who owns the copyright in question.
Do we have everything in order that we could quickly and successfully defend our continued use? Failing that, could we show that removal almost immediately upon notification showed enough good faith not to be liable for damages, given not just our noted quick response to valid assertions but our proactive policing of new additions for copyright violation? (Answer: almost certainly.)
This leads to complaints of excessive bureaucracy from people trying to *give* us stuff they almost certainly *do* own the copyright to ... but it's vastly important to our free content mission to do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing with regard to copyrights.
(And not to mention that Wikipedia has enough people who want it fucking dead, and work with psychotic dedication to this goal. No reason to hand them attack vectors either.)
- d.
geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Maybe I am one of those people who does not understand this.
If I had an article on WP and I uploaded an image of me and put it on my article claiming fair use, what is the problem? First, I am not going to sue.
You get knocked down and killed by a bus tomorrow. Will whoever inherits sue?
There's more to that question than meets the eye. Do you even know who will inherit? Unless someone is already established as a writer (or photographer, etrc.) the chances are that there is no mention of copyrights in your will, if you have a will at all. If you have a number of kids, especially ones that tend to fight together each has an equal right to free the material without consulting the others.
If you're still young and childless the rights will likely pass on to your parents, the same parents who for years have been telling you to get away from that computer and start doing something useful. Suddenly they inherit the copyrights to something they always thought was worthless, and other than for the nostalgia, they still think its worthless. Assume that they are suddenly asked for permissions when they were never readers themselves in the first place, and the notion of copyright is completely alien to their sense of reality.
Tell your parents that they will inherit your copyrights, and they will be ROTFL for sure.
It all gets a little strange.
Ec
On 02/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Fair use doesn't work like that (okey I admit I'm not totaly certain what would happen since no one is yet to take such a monumentally stupid case to court). You appear to think that fair use is some magic incarnation that can make all your copyright issues go away it does not. If fact it makes them worse. Fair use is hard. It is case law rather than statute law driven. That means that not only are their vast grey areas but there are random islands of black and white in the greyness that you are unlikely to know about. On top of that rather a lot of it is subject to change without warning.
The key point is that "fair use" is a *defence* in court *when someone sues you*. So there's good reason most times not to push it in the name of good sense (and good reason other times to hold firm in the name of freedom).
As an encyclopedia run by a non-profit that doesn't even take ads, Wikimedia could probably get away with pushing it *very far indeed* if we wanted to be dicks about it, and could take and use really quite a remarkable range of stuff as fair use.
But (a) we're all about the free content (b) we'd actually rather not be dicks about it all. So the Non-Free (note, not "fair use", it's the "non-free" aspect it's all about) Images Policy is much more restrictive than what we could get away with, and really isn't about the law at all - it's about an overwhelmingly strong bias toward genuine free content, and non-free content is basically here under sufferance.
So any discussion of the non-free images policy that talks about fair use and what the law allows is (IMO) missing the point of the non-free images policy.
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
Indeed, because an author cannot violate a copyright they own, and cannot sue themselves for the violation.
- d.
David Gerard schreef:
On 02/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
Indeed, because an author cannot violate a copyright they own, and cannot sue themselves for the violation.
I don't agree, the fair use claim may be offered to us: "I have a useful picture for article X for wich I hold the copyright; here it is; if you want to use it, you (Wikipedia) may do so as fair use."
I think this would make sense legally (if our fair use claim is valid).
On the other hand, in terms of WP policy this is probably never acceptable; since we are "in contact" with the copyright holder, there is a possibility to get a proper free license from him, and therefore the current image is replaceable.
Eugene
Well, since fair use is use in the absence of permission... An author wouldn't need to do that, necessarily. I suppose if they dangled it and said "Heeeree it is, take it if you want but I'm *not* giving it to you" that could come up. But, I can't see that being common.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
On 02/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
Indeed, because an author cannot violate a copyright they own, and cannot sue themselves for the violation.
I don't agree, the fair use claim may be offered to us: "I have a useful picture for article X for wich I hold the copyright; here it is; if you want to use it, you (Wikipedia) may do so as fair use."
I think this would make sense legally (if our fair use claim is valid).
On the other hand, in terms of WP policy this is probably never acceptable; since we are "in contact" with the copyright holder, there is a possibility to get a proper free license from him, and therefore the current image is replaceable.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
On 02/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Claiming fair use on your own work makes no friggin sense (unless you no longer hold the copyright) no matter how you try and dodge around the point thus we are not going to change policy to white list those who try.
Indeed, because an author cannot violate a copyright they own, and cannot sue themselves for the violation.
I don't agree, the fair use claim may be offered to us: "I have a useful picture for article X for wich I hold the copyright; here it is; if you want to use it, you (Wikipedia) may do so as fair use."
I think this would make sense legally (if our fair use claim is valid).
Fair use and permission are mutually exclusive. If a person uses the above phrasing, he is effectively granting a licence. Subsequent usage is derived from the licence which has defined it's own "fair use".In that instance the "fair use" defined in the statute is no longer relevant.
Ec