Hoi, You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even need to be ratified by legal council ..
Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does not have a license) will be disallowed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use
and
disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must
fair
use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical
events
that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of
living
people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
while
they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the
area of
fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on
different
projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining
as I
mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really
a
must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this
is
what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the
most
lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem
is
that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which
you
might not find as readily available as people for a project such as
commons
that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up
a
new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
The much bigger problem is getting the key members of the various projects to agree on a standard definition of what is and what isn't acceptable. I don't see that happening any time soon, unless some decision is made at the board level forcing the various projects to adopt a certain standard.
IIRC, the board was opposed to making such a decision the last time it was polled on such an idea. But I could be mistaken there.
An argument against even having a standard definition is that the different language encyclopedias have very different communities of users when it comes to what is legal and what isn't legal for them to distribute without permission (in some cases there is an argument that certain users wouldn't even be able to legally *contribute* to certain articles). Once you've entered the realm of using unlicensed images created in the last century or so you've taken the position that it's OK to create an encyclopedia which some portion of your user-base cannot legally distribute (and possibly contribute to). This is acceptable, I think, but it relies on balancing the benefits and drawbacks., and these benefits and drawbacks vary from community to community. The English Wikipedia for example has a much greater proportion of users who are able to use certain images than the French Wikipedia, for example.
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l