W. Guy Finley wrote:
On 3/9/06 11:08 AM, "Ray Saintonge"
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
W. Guy Finley wrote:
I think the first step is that any unlicensed
image being uploaded as fair
use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied. I
bet that's more than half of them right there. The process of tagging them
as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too
susceptible to error. It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is
meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go. It
shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the
perception.
When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long
time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very
short time to wait. It avoids the error of creating unnecessary
confusion. Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that
duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so.
There's no reason to panic about this.
Peruse IFD or CP lately Ray? Have fun wading through it. Nobody is
panicking, I think those who are trying to police images are getting worn
out. After all, you make so many friends doing it.
To many editors "fair use" is "it's cool and I want to use it,
that's fair"
and so they steal it and use it.
I absolutely agree that those individuals do not understand what fair
use is.
You put the blatant copyvio image up for
IFD and the uploader objects, no one else votes (because IFD is already full
of scores of copyvio images already, who wants to go and review them all
every day to vote on IFD) and the thing gets kept.
Why should it be a voting matter? My argument was to provide adequate
time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their
efforts are correct. If within that adequate time they can do not
bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend
on a vote to save them.
Even better, there are many editors who think that
citing a website that is
a repository of copyvio and unlicensed images qualifies as the image's
source, it does not.
Agreed.
Asserting "fair use" of an image is a nuanced
legal concept that many
editors cannot grasp so I feel something is needed to help rectify the
situation.
The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in
legal interpretations by the courts. I'm very much in favour of using
fair use material, but it must be real fair use.
Ec