On 1/29/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest. When it comes to content, it is the editors and users and not the Foundation who decide what is on. I don't presently serve as, and don't intend to become, the central authority for what is and isn't acceptable for fair use questions. It is not a subject that is prone to sweeping policy decisions, as counterexamples etc. abound. Again, since the license is the key to the forward looking nature of the project (here en:wp) why someone feels compelled to take the easy way out and {{fairuse}} image the heck out of articles out of a sense of obligation to "improve" it is beside the point.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
We should be expanding (and we are) the amount of content covered by free licenses (GFDL,CC-SA).
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.