Delirium wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've asked before, but are there any publications of the scale of Wikipedia that acutally use fair-use artwork? In nearly every instance I find licensed images instead, including several that have been offered today on the various talk pages of Wikipedia that were referencing Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't see fair use being used to this extent at all in major publications, even textbooks about artwork.
Well, I just linked you to a journal article freely published online; one among many. Do you want a hit counter on it or something to satisfy your "scale" requirement? I don't see what that would have to do with it anyway---How is fair use in a journal any different than fair use in an encyclopedia, legally speaking?
-Mark
The main point I was trying to offer here is that if you are concerned about copyright and being in a very public place like Wikipedia is where people would stand up and pay attention if you violate copyrights in an obvious fashion (by the owners of that copyrighted material).
I'm actually very surprised about this source code being here, to be honest. Atari (or whoever currently owns the Atari brand and the existing software from that company) still asserts copyright on this content, and has even licensed it relatively recently to a couple of toy manufacturers who have made "retro" games based on the old Atari 2600 cartrige systems. For this to be a complete dump of the content is IMHO the software equivalent to quoting verbatium an entire poem without permission and claiming fair use. I'm not sure this one would hold up if challenged, even though all that is shown is the object code.
It does, however, fit the definition of "one good example" that I've been seeking, even though it isn't really traditional art work. Computer software, particularly something written nearly 30 years ago, has certainly depreciated in value to the point that you could legitimately argue that its publication in this manner does not adversely affect its marketability.
Traditional art works, however, tends to appreciate in value over time, particularly when it is art work from popular artists and even more once that artist has died. This may be part of why the Louvre is trying to assert copyrights over some of the paintings in its galleries. In cases where the art is still clearly under copyright, I can imagine a much tougher time to consider the images of that art to be properly considered fair use and not infringing on the artist's copyright.