I still havent read any good argument for allowing fair use, except that the english wiki is using it en masse. Which sounds like a very strange argument, it is like saying: it is forbidden to spit, but as everyone spits, we allow it. If everyone would be indulging in PAs on the english wiki, would we allow them too?
On 2/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is no room to get NC and ND as an exemption.
You can disagree all you like, the basics of the draft are not up for discussion. There is room in the draft within very narrow confines to opt for a different implementation. Fair use is only possible as part of the an EDP. It is up to a project to want to opt for an EDP. This EDP will have to pass the legal requirements mentioned. An EDP will be denied when it does not comply with what is essential in the resolution.
I expect that when the resolution or the EDP is not complied with, the Foundation will reserve the right to enforce this requirement that all projects have to comply with.
Thanks, GerardM
On 2/26/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
the draft says that communities may create excemption rules. Fair use
may
be an excemption. According to Kats statement, ND and NC do not qualify as such. This is a draft, and drafts may be discussed. Please try to understand that some people disagree with this draft.
i wish you health and happiness, teun spaans
On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The draft in and of itself does not approve Fair use. What it does is
to
allow a community to have an exemption for the strict rules if the law of the US and the relevant countries allow for it. This is however
very
much not something that is favoured; this is clear in the restrictions that surround exempted material. My statement about NC and ND is
really
simple. Material that is NC and ND will not be allowed. Fair use material may be allowed. When material is allowed under the EDP as
Fair
use, it may have a NC or a ND license; this is incidental and actually not relevant. Thanks, Gerard
PS Great to hear what you do with these collections .. I am glad to
hear
about this :)
teun spaans schreef:
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@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 15.000pics
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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l