On 15/01/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
Are people removing NC tags and replacing them with fair-use, rather than additionally qualifying them with fair-use? (I honestly don't know) We should probably look into that.