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@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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l