You got it completely backwards. Content tagged as NC and ND will on its
own not be permitted. It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft
resolution. When a project has an EDP, fair use may be permitted. This
is indeed explicitly not in compliance with the notions of the
. 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.
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.
teun spaans schreef:
"fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org
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.
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish
>> Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
>> Kind regards, Londenp
>> 2007/2/22, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
>>> On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh <kwalsh(a)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
>>>> 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.