Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When it is painful that things are not available in Wikipedia because we do not allow for fair use, it will stimulate the debate about the way copyright is an offence to bringing information and science to the people. By using fair use pictures you allow the status quo to maintain it self. The dearth of material about certain subjects makes them even less relevant. For the parties like the RIAA it is important to realise that without the availability of material like this, many of their artists will only be forgotten that much quicker. Not that they are likely to care because there is always the next boy band or girlie group to hype.
This is an interesting perspective. There is still a need to differentiate between how existing copyright law relates to Wikimedia projects, and what, if anything, we should be doing to promote changes to copyright law. Both are important, and both require a high degree of individual acceptance of responsibility.
In regards to the former highly compliant policies that attempt to avoid the slightest hint of a lawsuit keep the likes of RIAA very happy, and do nothing to advance the projects. Overly aggressive policies can be just as harmful because they will drain the Foundation in unwinnable lawsuits. Ironically, if no one so much as takes the first steps in a legal proceeding that is probably a sign that we are being too timid. Such proceedings can be an incentive to review the issues involved in the light of real circumstances, and in most cases we can take the opportunity to concede before the matter gets out of hand, and to push forward conservatively in only those cases where vital issues are at stake. For the most part the burden of taking these matters further along the legal paths should rest with the person who has the belief that some particular text or image is indispensible to the relevant Wikimedia project.
I think that our mission is more than simply regurgitating material that is already free. To me it also involves freeing that which is not yet free. With material that is clearly protected this may involve simply getting permissions which the owner is easily willing to give. Sometimes the owner is simply not findable, and the material is orphaned; at other times the person claiming the copyright is making an invalid claim for any of a number of reasons. While I strongly support the continued inclusion of properly defined fair use material, I also make special note of the fact that there are numerous other provisions in the law that would succeed as well if not better to substantiate the free nature of specified texts and images.
Securing change in copyright law is a separate problem. It requires caution to insure that our status as a tax-exempt corporation will not be jeapordized by excessive participation in lobbying or other political activities. It does not stop any individual from relating his experiences as a Wikimedia editor. It does not stop us from discussing the directions that we would like legislators around the world to take in this direction, and arriving at a realistic synthesis that would balance interests on both sides of the copyright divide. After all one of the purposes of such law is to balance divergent interests. In the light of our broader mission what is worth more to us: limiting fair use in places that already have it, or seeking an expansion of fair dealing in places that apply it too restrictively?
Ec