On 2/23/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. You got it completely backwards.
NO. Fair use says others may use what we write. yes. Fair use says that in the US and Canada (and perhaps a bunch of UK-related countries) images may be used in a certain context, but this is often haphazard, as the context is always a matter of debate. It can not be freely used outside this domain. The fair use excemption seems to be only provided because of the huge oppostion on the english wiki. But the allowance of fair use on the wikis should not be based on US laws, but on international treaties, and its adherence to freedomdefined.org. The fact that US laws allow it, is no reason for us to allow it as well.
Content tagged as NC and ND will on its
own not be permitted.
It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft
resolution.
The draft says: ''
By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted''
So if a community acccepts NC or ND as an EDP, it will not be deleted. So your statement is invalid.
When a project has an EDP, fair use may be permitted. This
is indeed explicitly not in compliance with the notions of the freedomdefined.org. Fair use material may have a license, any license, including NC and ND. This material will be permitted on the basis of the EDP and on the basis of it being considered Fair use. I have never ever said that an EDP will allow for all NC or ND.
You have not said that, but the draft does not exclude it.
What I have said, but not in this thread, that there is no provision for
the inclusion of logos of organisations. It is extremely useful to have logos in our encyclopaedia. The notion that these logos have to be available under a license that will allow people to make derivatives is moronic. In my opinion it is being over-zealous in how we provide a Free resource. The first criteria for our projects is providing information. This is forgotten in the argument. Now this is just one reason why it is good to have an EDP; this way a project can have logos of organisations on its articles and Commons can be what it is; only a resource of digital material available under a Free license.
Logos are a prime example of images which are not free and ND. So you
contradict yourself.
Logos can probably be used under fair use as far as copyright goes, but often have other restrictions as well. Logos doe not carry any information accept recognition. They do not server the purpose of an encyclopedia very much, though they might serve a book about logos.
If you allow logos, you might as well grant the whole world of press photos, which are generally intended to be used freely but ND.
kind regards, teun
Thanks
GerardMteun spaans schreef:
Gerad,
"fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org.
There
seems to be na rationale to allow fair use except that a large part of
the
english community objects.
You keep repeating that NC and ND will be tolerated as "fair use", but
so
far I've read no rationale for regarding them as such. They are simply
two
totally different concepts.
kind regards, teun
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for
interpretations.
By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might
close
the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about
that),
but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for
commercial
exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am
not
opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic
detrimental
implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it.
The
draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two
exceptions:
Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish
Wikinews.
Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too
far
about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive
side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that
could
possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l