Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Wikipedia should rely upon the contributions of its editors, not on material others have created, if possible. Of course it's impossible to get a new photo of a historical event, taken by a Wikipedian, but we should make sure that all fair use images which aren't of past events should be replaced with new images which Wikipedians have contributed. That's what Wikipedia is about to me.
I concur.
I definitely don't want fair use images to go from en: completely. My favourite article with heavy use of fair use images is [[Xenu]]. One is the cover of "Dianetics", illustrating a point in the article about Scientology book covers after the Xenu story was put into Scientology; one is the [[Sea Org]] logo, which also comes from the Xenu story; and one is a sample of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting, showing the only known example of the word "Xenu" in his own handwriting. None of those three are particularly replaceable. But their use in that article is pretty clearly academic fair use, and I did run them past Jimbo before it was made a front page feature, given Scientology's famously strong legal defence of anything it sees as a copyright or trademark violation. So far we haven't heard a peep out of Scientology on the matter, and they're well aware of the article (and at least one staff member has edited it), so I would presume they accept legal action on the matter would be a losing proposition (though I believe they have a few years before we can be sure laches has kicked in).
- d.
Amen. This is the goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy -- proper fair use when necessary, well thought out, with the issues at stake well understood.
A number of people have occasionally taken calls for a restricted fair use policy to imply copyright paranoia or some sort of feebleness in standing up for fair use rights. This is of course not anyone's goal. In my mind, the more careful, deliberate, and (hopefully) informed we are in the implementation of fair use policies, the more confidence we can have in our use of fair use images, and the more empowered we actually are in the end. Poor or pointless invocations of fair use strengthen nothing but the arguments and hysterical claims of those many parties out there whose goals are to make copyright law as binding and restrictive as possible.
FF
On 1/20/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Wikipedia should rely upon the contributions of its editors, not on material others have created, if possible. Of course it's impossible to get a new photo of a historical event, taken by a Wikipedian, but we should make sure that all fair use images which aren't of past events should be replaced with new images which Wikipedians have contributed. That's what Wikipedia is about to me.
I concur.
I definitely don't want fair use images to go from en: completely. My favourite article with heavy use of fair use images is [[Xenu]]. One is the cover of "Dianetics", illustrating a point in the article about Scientology book covers after the Xenu story was put into Scientology; one is the [[Sea Org]] logo, which also comes from the Xenu story; and one is a sample of L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting, showing the only known example of the word "Xenu" in his own handwriting. None of those three are particularly replaceable. But their use in that article is pretty clearly academic fair use, and I did run them past Jimbo before it was made a front page feature, given Scientology's famously strong legal defence of anything it sees as a copyright or trademark violation. So far we haven't heard a peep out of Scientology on the matter, and they're well aware of the article (and at least one staff member has edited it), so I would presume they accept legal action on the matter would be a losing proposition (though I believe they have a few years before we can be sure laches has kicked in).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
Amen. This is the goal of Wikipedia's fair use policy -- proper fair use when necessary, well thought out, with the issues at stake well understood.
A number of people have occasionally taken calls for a restricted fair use policy to imply copyright paranoia or some sort of feebleness in standing up for fair use rights. This is of course not anyone's goal. In my mind, the more careful, deliberate, and (hopefully) informed we are in the implementation of fair use policies, the more confidence we can have in our use of fair use images, and the more empowered we actually are in the end. Poor or pointless invocations of fair use strengthen nothing but the arguments and hysterical claims of those many parties out there whose goals are to make copyright law as binding and restrictive as possible.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this spectrum. The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights. On the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all. "Fair use" is a tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the right circumstances. By rejecting it completely we also make it easier for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take the abandoned ground unopposed.
Ec
On 1/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this spectrum. The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights. On the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all. "Fair use" is a tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the right circumstances. By rejecting it completely we also make it easier for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take the abandoned ground unopposed.
I think in regards to Wikipedia policy there are two options:
1. We reject all fair use images in favor of entirely "free" ones. One could read this as a retreat from copyright holders (as you imply above), or one could read this as the only genuine way to create truly free cultural products. Commons embraces this approach (with the latter reasoning), WP:En does not. 2. We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody thinking they could sue us and win." This solution is not the *easiest* one -- it rests on subjective and often uninformed interpretations of an ambiguous part of U.S. copyright law -- and nor does it necessarily accomplish the primary goal of ultimate redistribution freedom (in fact most countries do not have statutes anywhere as lenient as the "fair use" provisions in U.S. copyright law), but it lends itself to producing a more "complete" and "professional-looking" encyclopedia. It also might mean that we are making some sort of stand about the limitations of copyrights, but I suspect this is only a secondary motivation or interpretation. In any event, this is the policy we current follow on WP:En.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 1/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are extreme views at both ends of this spectrum. The simple fact that publishing an image would somehow be in the public interest is not enough to defeat someone's copyrights. On the other hand it is also simplistic to say that because there is a subsisting copyright the image cannot be used at all. "Fair use" is a tool on the path to free use that can be used to great effect in the right circumstances. By rejecting it completely we also make it easier for those favoring more restrictive copyrights because they can now take the abandoned ground unopposed.
I think in regards to Wikipedia policy there are two options:
- We reject all fair use images in favor of entirely "free" ones. One
could read this as a retreat from copyright holders (as you imply above), or one could read this as the only genuine way to create truly free cultural products. Commons embraces this approach (with the latter reasoning), WP:En does not. 2. We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody thinking they could sue us and win." This solution is not the *easiest* one -- it rests on subjective and often uninformed interpretations of an ambiguous part of U.S. copyright law -- and nor does it necessarily accomplish the primary goal of ultimate redistribution freedom (in fact most countries do not have statutes anywhere as lenient as the "fair use" provisions in U.S. copyright law), but it lends itself to producing a more "complete" and "professional-looking" encyclopedia. It also might mean that we are making some sort of stand about the limitations of copyrights, but I suspect this is only a secondary motivation or interpretation. In any event, this is the policy we current follow on WP:En.
It should be quite clear by now that I strongly support the second option. Still I would be more inclined to base it on a fair-minded attitude in preference to one based on what could happen in a law suit. Fair mindedness involves taking into account the rights of others. A person who claims fair use should indeed have some elementary understanding of what he's talking about. Ultimate redistribution freedom can be a big problem, but putting too strict a definition on that can lead to all sorts of dilemmas. I know that most of our discussions have focused on images, but the fair use law that applies to images is the same one that applies to text, and for me disallowing all fair use text would imply disallowing properly attributed quotes of one-sentence length. Purpose is key to one of the fair use texts, and we have no way of controlling this in downstream users. Perhaps we need to assume that the downstream use will fail that test. Is it the most important of the four tests? Since no one test alone is determinative, can a usage which fails that test satill be fair use when it passes the other tests? Once we answer that in a US legal context, we will have a better idea of how to approach that problem in relation to other countries.
We can't duck from the political motivation, but it must remain secondary. Before that can be a real motivation we need to be very aware in the legal areana.
Ec
On 1/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
I think in regards to Wikipedia policy there are two options:
- We reject all fair use images in favor of entirely "free" ones. One
could read this as a retreat from copyright holders (as you imply above), or one could read this as the only genuine way to create truly free cultural products. Commons embraces this approach (with the latter reasoning), WP:En does not. 2. We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody thinking they could sue us and win." [....]
It should be quite clear by now that I strongly support the second option. Still I would be more inclined to base it on a fair-minded attitude in preference to one based on what could happen in a law suit. Fair mindedness involves taking into account the rights of others.
The way I've always viewed it, the best solution would be that there is no copyright restriction on anyone, in any location, distributing any Wikipedia article, along with any editorial changes which keep in spirit with the original work (IOW, you can't just cut out everything except for the picture).
There should certainly be no copyright restriction under US law on anyone distributing any Wikipedia article without modification. The way I see it, Wikipedia doesn't currently even provide *that*, though to the extent it doesn't it's probably a violation of Wikipedia policies.
I know that most of our discussions have focused on images, but the fair use law that applies to images is the same one that applies to text, and for me disallowing all fair use text would imply disallowing properly attributed quotes of one-sentence length.
It seems to me that a properly attributed quote of one-sentence length, as used in Wikipedia articles, would fall under both of those categories I gave above. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you know of a jurisdiction which doesn't allow encyclopedias to include short quotations without permission?
Purpose is key to one of the fair use texts, and we have no way of controlling this in downstream users.
Sure, downstream users can always make *drastic changes* to change the very character of the encyclopedia article. There's really no way to avoid that. But I think you're trying for too much there. I think it should be enough to allow the encyclopedia to be copied and redistributed with modifications which remain in the spirit of an encyclopedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make a free encyclopedia. A pedantic interpretation of that might require the concept of freedom to stand alone, but I see it as good enough to require that the freedom only extend to use in an actual encyclopedia.
Perhaps we need to assume that the downstream use will fail that test. Is it the most important of the four tests? Since no one test alone is determinative, can a usage which fails that test satill be fair use when it passes the other tests? Once we answer that in a US legal context, we will have a better idea of how to approach that problem in relation to other countries.
I think when analyzing the fair use one has to assume that Wikipedia should be legally distributed for commercial purposes. That's pretty much the only change. The German company which is redistributing the German Wikipedia is a commercial enterprise, and it should be perfectly legal for them to do the same thing with the English Wikipedia.
We can't duck from the political motivation, but it must remain secondary. Before that can be a real motivation we need to be very aware in the legal areana.
Ec
I've said for a long time that I think the first step is to define what is meant by the "free" in "free encyclopedia", in much the same manner as the FSF defined the "free" in "free software" (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). My current working definition is essentially what I gave above ("no copyright restriction on anyone, in any location, distributing any Wikipedia article, along with any editorial changes which keep in spirit with the original work"). It needs tweaking, especially in clarifying what is meant by "any editorial changes which keep in spirit with the original work", but I think it's close to what I picture the goals of Wikipedia to be.
But Jimbo has explicitly rejected this idea. He says that what he means by the "free" in "free encyclopedia" is already clear. Unless that's just a passive-agressive way of saying that he wants to "eliminate fair use", I think he's horribly mistaken.
Anthony
On 1/21/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
- We approach fair use reasonably, not being afraid of using it where
we need to and with a philosophy of "least likelihood of anybody thinking they could sue us and win."
Going down this route is against Wikipedia's aspirations towards being a *free* (as in speech) encyclopedia, demonstrates an open contempt for intellectual property rights that is alien to the free content principle, and is likely to be used against us with some success in any future lawsuit.
As a free encyclopedia and the most significant free intellectual property entity ever created, we must never advocate, either openly or in private, the abuse of the intellectual property of others, lest we taint the entire free content enterprise.
Why is the inclusion of "fair use" content even a question for Wikipedia? People don't come to us in their millions for pictures of movie stars and album covers; for those they can go to better funded websites that have a considerable revenue and can retain legal advisers and are in a position to pay royalties on those items that they use.
We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any context''. We are in a position now politely to request that, if editors want to obtain an image for use on Wikipedia, they should write to the copyright owner on our behalf and with our full blessing, explaining the free content license and requesting such a license for a specific image.
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Because that would make it one step more difficult for them to sue people making bootleg copies of the album.
Why would they want to compromise their entire legal strategy over something as trivial as having their album cover on Wikipedia?
Regards, Haukur
On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any context''.
Hmm anyone who wants to help can start by telling me which Beatle is which in this photo:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any context''.
Hmm anyone who wants to help can start by telling me which Beatle is which in this photo:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg
-- geni
Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any context''.
Hmm anyone who wants to help can start by telling me which Beatle is which in this photo:
Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.
Not to mention where there was a bit of paper stuck on before the photo was scanned...
On 1/22/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.
I'm not going to use that part of the image. I'm going to try and cut it up for headshots -- geni
I'm not going to use that part of the image. I'm going to try and cut it up for headshots -- geni
try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles_retouched.jpg
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Ah, refreshing naivete, brings to mind ponies and unicorns frolicking in the flowery meadows...
These guys sue each other all the time over what seems like trivial points to normal human beings, and they sue their customers too. They paid a bunch of money for the images on those album covers, and count the associated branding as company assets - they aren't about to start giving all that away. Free use licenses? Their heads would explode.
As untidy as it seems, fair use of cover art is a pragmatic solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the notoriously litigious record companies don't hassle WP for copying thousands of album covers - the companies don't give up their rights, readers get to enjoy the illustrated articles. The only people unhappy with the situation are a handful of Wikipedians concerned about the ideology.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Ah, refreshing naivete, brings to mind ponies and unicorns frolicking in the flowery meadows...
These guys sue each other all the time over what seems like trivial points to normal human beings, and they sue their customers too. They paid a bunch of money for the images on those album covers, and count the associated branding as company assets - they aren't about to start giving all that away. Free use licenses? Their heads would explode.
As untidy as it seems, fair use of cover art is a pragmatic solution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the notoriously litigious record companies don't hassle WP for copying thousands of album covers - the companies don't give up their rights, readers get to enjoy the illustrated articles. The only people unhappy with the situation are a handful of Wikipedians concerned about the ideology.
It may even be naive to believe that pragmatism is anything but a tough sell among some mailing list participants.
Ec
On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Knowing Wikipedia's reach and reputation, why would a content owner refuse a reasonable free use license over something as trivial as an image of an album cover?
Probably the same reasons many Wikipedians refuse a reasonable free use license for images of themselves. Two major ones are fear the image will be altered in some way that will harm them and a desire not to allow others to profit off of their hard work.
The latter reason isn't going to be resolved, but maybe there are some ways to appease those with the former reason. For instance, a license could be devised which allows an image to be distributed by anyone, unaltered, in an encyclopedia in any medium (some lawyer-minded folk would have to come up with a way to allow alterations necessary for the change in medium but not other alterations). Then this license could be allowed for some subset of images which are currently being used under fair use (album covers and publicity shots are two categories which immediately come to mind).
Anthony
