I would like to point out the example of Paul Blank too. I do not actually
know whether he is a professional photographer, but he photographed a lot of
images of Dutch soccer players and other celebraties, such as royals,
politicians etc. Lots of these have an article on nl.wikipedia without a
photo, untill he released, because of wikipedia, his photo's under a free
licence, CC-BY. His photo's are very nice, and I doubt somehow we would have
gotten these photo's when we would have used Fair Use images instead of
nothing. He uplaoded first one photo himself, and after some talking, he
released the rest. And why would someone not hardcore wikipedian upload a
photo when there is already one? It is not very logical at first, even with
blinking templates etc, as many people will 1) not even see it, due to the
noisy layout of wikipedia, 2) they will just think " hey you already have an
image, why do you want mine?". Dont forget most visitors dont care about the
free license issue, they only care about wikipedia, about getting wikipedia
nice, and wont release stuff if they feel it is not absolutely needed.
Lodewijk
2007/2/26, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com>om>:
I will probably respond to the rest later, as your statement about NC and
ND
raises som questions. As you have understood, I oppose the intended draft
if
it allows fair use but disapproves other notions.
But for the moment I'd like to say that I agree 100% with your remark
about
referring to the mention of museums ion the metadata.
As you may or may not know, my main pix are in the area of biology, and I
got permission of two academic botanical gardens and a nursery to
photograph
their collections on the condition that I mention their location on
upload.
A condition I gladly fullfill, as I am grateful for the chance they offer
me.
On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
You read the draft incorrectly; NC and ND are on its own not permitted
in an EDP. This has been explicitly confirmed by Kat Walsh. So be clear
about it; only the argument "Fair use" allows something with a NC or ND
license to be kept in our projects. This is not negotionable.
I am not a fan of Fair use, I am not a fan of the overly restrictive
ways that we are embarking on either. There is no way in which we can
have a logo of a company without creating a legalistic mess where the
license says that you can change it and the trademark says that you
cannot is horrible to me. The fact that we do not acknowledge museums
for looking after our cultural heritage by referring to them in the Meta
data, the fact that we do not do this because it is Public Domain, is
another missed opportunity to do the right thing.
The notion that with this doctrine we have established how we have to
deal with digital material once and for all is a notion that I do not
subscribe to.
You want to remind me on how this thread started; in the Dutch community
we are working on getting much more pictures of those famous in the
Netherlands by making it a project. This one picture of a former
basketball player is imho an isolated incident. When people have the
time and the inclination, this is something that can be done elsewhere
as well. I want to remind you in turn that I responded to a remark made
in this thread. This is what you do in threads.
When you wonder how much effort was put in getting Free material.. we
can use more people in the (Dutch) committee for free material ..
Thanks,
GerardM
teun spaans schreef:
Gerard,
May I kindly remind you how this thread started.
This thread started with a beautiful story of how the lack of a photo
prompted a professional photographer to donate photos. Personally I
think
> this would never happened if there had been an image under the fair
use
> provision. The lack of a picture makes
people run, if there is a
picture
no
one gets out of his chair to say: He, there is a
match tonight, I'm
gonna
take some pix.
I know many fair use advocates think the opposite. On this list I read
"the
> availability of a fair use image won't stop
> someone from adding a free alternative" and "We should also recall
that
the
> readers, would like to see an image until there "
>
> When we spoke with each other in the past you never supported the
usage
of
> "fair use". Somehow your statements on this list, when I read them,
even
where
they seem to say the opposite, seem to suggest that you have
changed
your point of view.
For example, when Muhammed suggests "the availability of a fair use
image
> won't stop someone from adding a free alternative", I think: he's
right
it
> is not forbidden to add a free picture. But no longer any one will
stand
up
and say: it is a shame that we dont have a photo,
There is a mact /
concert
> / interview tonight, I am going there and snap some pix! So
effectually,
having a
fair use image does hurt the collecting of free content. Then
you
come and suggest that there is no need to cripple
images for fair use
(an
> doubtful statement, see below). Even when you add "If anything we
should
not
have "Fair use" material.", your
previous statement seems to support
Muhammeds plead for fair use.
You suggest that it is not necessary to crop high quality images for
fair
> use. The assumption that cropping images improves legal chances for
fair
use
application is however very widespread. It also
was one of the factors
in
Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir.
2003).
The defenders of fair use should realize that we talk about a rather
vast
amount of images.
Some numbers:
Template:albumcovers: >55.000
Template:film-screenshot: >15.000
Template:Tv-screenshot: > 30.000
Now these images will be hard to replace, but I really wonder how many
attempts have been made to make them free.
Others, such as those of famous people, and many of the 15.000 pics in
"template:fair use in" fall in this category, could potentially be
replaced
by free pictures is someone simply steps out of
his chair and starts
taking
> pictures.
>
> Gerad, I think you did not understand what I wrote about NC and ND.
The
current
draft as I read it, places little restrictions on exemptions.
This
may lead to all kinds of unintended exemptions.
I know that in your heart, Gerard, you support the creation of free
content.
>
>
> I wish you health and happiness,
> teun spaans
>
>
>
> On 2/24/07, GerardM < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > wrote:
>
>> Teun.
>> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to
deal
>> with
>> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
>> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material
is
>> used
>> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to
>> cripple
>> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
>>
>> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the
>> other
>> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote.
It
is
>>
>> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
>> Exemption
>> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to
discuss
how
> this is to be implemented if at all. This is
what I did.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gerard,
>>
>> may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
>>
> content?
>
>> Fair use is not free.
>>
>> And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few
of
>>> the
>>> old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use
>>>
>> one.
>>
>>> regards,
>>> teun spaans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under
Fair
>>>>
>>> use,
>>>
>>>> you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when
>>>>
>> there
>>
>>>> is
>>>> no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way
to
>>>>>
>> get
>>
>>>>> rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image
won't
>>>>>
>>> stop
>>>
>>>>> someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images
shouldn't
be
>>>>> added in a high
resolution..right? so when someone sees the image
>>>>>
>> with
>>
>>>>> low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it
with
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
>>>>
>> saying
>>
>>>> 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on
the
>>>>
> other
>
>>>> end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>> images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
>>>>
> article!)...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l