Gregory Maxwell wrote:
***Your claim that Italian copyright law does not permit fair dealing
is incorrect: ***
Under Italian law you are permitted 'abridgment, quotation or
reproduction of fragments or parts of a work for the purpose of
criticism or discussion, or for instructional purposes.'
(see Italian Copyright Act Article 70; Nimmer and Geller (1998-),
Italy, ยง8[2][a])
IANAL, but I'm not sure this can be applied to works of art, photographs
and all the non-text things we're talking about. Last months SIAE
(Italian Society of Authors and Publishers) enforced copyright on an
amateurial art website which was showing contemporary paintings. The
website was describing and commenting these works, so the use of the
pictures was "to illustrate what it was talking about". Still, this is
copyright infringement under the Italian Law. Instructional purposes
means that a teacher can distribute N copies of a copyrighted media to
his/her students, but if you print a book well you have to pay the
copyright owner his/her fair royalty.
I would rather we not mention the ND license for an
image that we use
as fair use. By doing so we would be sending the wrong message: That
ND licenses are somehow acceptable to us, even if only
conditionally... that they aren't usually a result of a
misunderstanding, and that we don't think the creative commons has
made a mistake by mixing Free Content licenses under the same brand as
far more restrictive licenses. We face a constant issue where people
ask us "Why did you delete this? I released it under creative commons
licensing so it is free!". People submit what they see, and if they
see ND they will submit more of that.
Although, I don't think it's the end of the world that we do mention
it.. it is a matter of fact, and because most of our permissible
non-free images will come from the all-rights-reserved camp, I
seriously hope we'll never see many NC / ND + "fair use" images. If
we do, then we will know what a grave mistake for the world that the
Creative Commons folks made by introducing so many licenses which are
not free enough.
_______________________________________________
Fair use is NOT a license. It's a way to defend yourself when challenged
about copyright infringement. If you have a NC media used in Wikipedia
under fair use, why should someone who wants to use it non-commercially
be tricked into thinking that it is (c)All rights reserved when the
media is actually a bit more free? Ok, not free enough for Wikimedia,
but hey someone else may have other interests out there...
Marco (Cruccone)