On 1/29/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/29/07, George Herbert
We're not an 800 pound gorilla; but we're
much more than a dancing macacque.
We're neither. For most the net we are wallpaper.
The same could be said of Google. It's become a utility and a stock
on the ticker for a lot of people.
I would like
to second Cunctator's comments in general. Specifically,
while I encourage the development of free content wherever possible, I
want to be realistic that there's a tradeoff between covering
something well and covering something badly but with entirely free
content. I will always come down on the side of a better
encyclopedia if an appropriate, legal fair use content add will better
I had someone just last week suggest that we
could find free
replacement images for a spacecraft which had been assembled and flown
in space already, both for the spacecraft under construction and for
the landing. The only people who took and released photos of the
assembly who are known are the official space agency photographers
(not NASA, India's ISRO), and the landing took place several hundred
kilometers out to sea, with one Indian Coast Guard ship and some
helicopters in attendance. How exactly are we supposed to go back in
time and convince a free-license photographer to go take pictures of
those events that already happened? How do we convince ISRO and the
Indian Coast Guard to let them do it?
Experience suggests it or scale models will turn up in a museum
...and when it does, then someone can go take a picture of it and
replace the existing ones, and we'll all be happy.
UNTIL THEN, there exists no alternative.
don't fight for the meaning and use of Fair Use, we both lose
content for ourselves, and lose content for the whole community at
large by not helping to uphold fair use vigorously.
I know of two legal systems that have fair use. People living under
other systems get by.
If Wikipedia won't stand up for Fair Use,
then it's a pretty sad
It is get used to it.
We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal
and proper in
supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Then why was I deleting trivially replaceable non free images for
rather a lot of last week? Are you seriously going to tell that since
February 2006 no one has been in a position to make a pic of Pickled
It is arguably both true that there are reasonably replaceable images
there now labeled Fair Use (which should be replaced sooner rather
than later), and people trying to delete things which are not
reasonably or possibly replaceable. This is what happens when we
don't have a clear theory of what we're trying to do with fair use,
and muddled case "law" precedent and interpretations.
But those who
say "oh, if we remove
it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it"
frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it
Experience suggests otherwise and at present time there is no
significant movement toward deleting all fair use material.
I would not be here complaining if there weren't. I am not
grandstanding here to make political points because Fair Use in
Society is a Big Thing for me. There is serious anti-fair-use
activity going on, mostly under the radar, but consistently and
widespread. The policy is vague and inconsistent enough to allow
that. It's wrong, and it has to be limited.
photos of all types are generally accepted to be put out
there by people and companies to be reused.
Please provide details of the licence they are under
-george william herbert