Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and the story has a moral. I want to tell it.
The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the NBA professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson died, he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.
After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share with us, from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released it under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone decided to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As for now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to come.
So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him and explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a magnificent image is now free. <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
Is your point that we should remove all "fair use images", causing the articles to be without an image making someone donate a free one?
Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of daniwo59@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:18 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] a new free image!
Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and the story has a moral. I want to tell it.
The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the NBA professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson died, he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.
After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share with us, from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released it under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone decided to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As for now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we
find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to
"fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to
come.
So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him and explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a magnificent image is now free. <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/23/07, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Today we got a nice new image on the English Wikipedia--see [[Dennis Johnson]], a star of the NBA, who died recently. The image has a story, and the story has a moral. I want to tell it.
The creator is an established sports photographer who has worked for the NBA professional as a photographer. He is also one of the many thousands of uknown (to us) fans of Wikipedia who visit teh site regularly. When Johnson died, he went to the article, and noticed there was no picture, so he decided to donate one that he took. He called the office to ask how to do it.
After speaking with him briefly, I realized that we have a potential treasure trove of FREE images here, which he was willing and eager to share with us, from the NBA and many other areas. I asked Greg Maxwell to speak with him about licensing, and the rest is history. He selected an image and released it under the GFDL license. Hopefully, there will be more to come.
As for the moral of the story: we were missing an image, and someone decided to release one of his own--a high quality professional image at that. As for now, I can only wonder at the argument that we keep fairuse images until we find free ones. The fact that we did not have an image encouraged someone to "fix the problem" and provide a free one. There will likely be many more to come.
So, I just want to say thank you to the photographer, who understood the value in what we are doing, and to Greg Maxwell, for spending time with him and explaining the free license philosophy. And I also want to thank all the contributors who did NOT rush to post a fairuse image. Because of that, a magnificent image is now free.
I would also like to thank Jkelly's excellent customer service in dealing with this gentleman fairly and politely when he had second thoughts initially about contributing (working with him to delete the unintended contribution until Greg could take the time to fully and fairly explain to him what he was being asked to agree to) and Cary Bass (Bastique) for some behind-the-scenes OTRS work to make sure everyone was on the same page.
Good work, everyone!
Kelly
<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!)...
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
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
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
Well, there is such a reason, namely that it would motivate people to make a better free image. And the argument that the new image is not as good as the fair use one wont count then either. So there is a reason
Whether you find that a good reason is a second.
Lodewijk
2007/2/24, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
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
Hoi, You may suggest it as a reason. It is however not mentioned at all in the draft policy. Personally I am of the opinion that it is insulting to the photographer to have the quality of his/her image willfully reduced for dogmatic reasons.
Retaining an image with the argument that the quality of a Free image is less than the quality of a Fair use image is not permitted under the EDP. When there is a replacement, there is no longer a rationale for this image to be retained. Consequently the Fair use image should be replaced. In the mean time we should provide the best service possible.
Thanks, GerardM
On 2/24/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is such a reason, namely that it would motivate people to make a better free image. And the argument that the new image is not as good as the fair use one wont count then either. So there is a reason
Whether you find that a good reason is a second.
Lodewijk
2007/2/24, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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
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 15.000 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!)...
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 15.000 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
I would like to point out the example of Paul Blank too. I do not actually know whether he is a professional photographer, but he photographed a lot of images of Dutch soccer players and other celebraties, such as royals, politicians etc. Lots of these have an article on nl.wikipedia without a photo, untill he released, because of wikipedia, his photo's under a free licence, CC-BY. His photo's are very nice, and I doubt somehow we would have gotten these photo's when we would have used Fair Use images instead of nothing. He uplaoded first one photo himself, and after some talking, he released the rest. And why would someone not hardcore wikipedian upload a photo when there is already one? It is not very logical at first, even with blinking templates etc, as many people will 1) not even see it, due to the noisy layout of wikipedia, 2) they will just think " hey you already have an image, why do you want mine?". Dont forget most visitors dont care about the free license issue, they only care about wikipedia, about getting wikipedia nice, and wont release stuff if they feel it is not absolutely needed.
Lodewijk
2007/2/26, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com:
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 15.000 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
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 15.000 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!)...
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 15.000 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
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 15.000 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
On 2/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is no room to get NC and ND as an exemption.
Allow fair use if also NC would be allowed as far as I can tell.
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
On 2/26/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Which brings us a problem in other wikis.:
$Why can''t I upload such file? #Well, because it's fair use and commons/local wiki does not allow it $Why? #Since such images aren't free and we're building a free encyclopedia. $BUT THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ALLOWS NONFREE IMAGES!!!! #.......
teun spaans wrote:
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
I fail to see what the problem is with very narrow categories of image types that may not be strictly available under a FLOSS license. I would count among those types of images that are reasonable applications of fair use would include:
* Official government seals and symbols, including flags * Official government documents such as passports, stamps, currency, banknotes, etc. * Corporate Logos and trademarks, where their usage is directly tied to content specifically about that organization
All of these sorts of images are routinely used by major publishers under fair-use provisions, where formal permission is not usually granted by the various corporations and government entities. All of these sorts of images, however, have been banned on Commons. I'm not here to change commons policies, but these sorts of images can make or break some Wikibooks or Wikipedia articles, and I have seen all of these used in commercial encyclopedias as well. Imagine what a book about stamps would be like if you couldn't show the actual stamp.
It should be noted that all of these kind of images do fall under some sort of perpetual protections where copyright as it is usually defined doesn't normally apply. And unless the company goes bankrupt or the government of the country whose symbols you are showing ceases to exist due to warfare or cataclismic disaster, they will never ever be free in the FLOSS sense of the term. Perhaps a *very* enlightened group might grant logos under the GFDL or something similar, but look even to the WMF to see how likely that would be. The only "free" logo I know of is the GNU Gnu of the FSF and I'm not even sure about that.
Another very legitimate application of fair use is to quote text verbatium, provided you distinguish it somehow (such as put it in block quote area or use quotation marks) and cite the source as a bibliographic reference. This is indeed fair use rationale in nearly every case where it is used, and one of the reasons explicitly why the fair-use doctrine was codified into the United States Code. There are extreme cases of textual quotation that does go over the top as well, but generally it is obvious enough when that happens that most people can come to a concensus and say "let's chop this quote down" or rework the lengthy quotation.
The problem is that happens with photographs and rendered graphical images is that the rationale for fair use is very, very weak, and unfortunately the current internet user culture is such that most people think that once you have "obtained" an image, that you own it and have unlimited reproduction privileges on it. We all know this (at least on this list) to be a completely incorrect viewpoint, but the academic standards for including images just havn't been pushed into our heads to the same degree that similar duplication of textual material would have, even if we have a strong respect of copyright as a general philosophy. Modern textbooks, magazines, and newspapers hardly help either when it seems as though large portions of the content are displayed in photo, charts, and other graphical images. Some children's textbooks in America have so many photos that you start to wonder where the actual content of the textbook itself might be found. It is no wonder that a Wikipedian upon looking at a well developed article that would otherwise be a feature article candidate looks empty and missing something when there are no images to be used with the text. Most of the project users have grown up with the multi-media barrage in daily life and simply expect it to be there.
I support severe limitation on the use of fair-use material within Wikimedia projects, but I think that a complete and total ban is simply too much. There are legitimate applications of fair use, and the question that really confronts us is to define just how tight we want to draw that line. Unfortunately, with the diversity of people participating in these projects (especially Wikipedia), it seems very unlikely that you are going to come to a general agreement about where that line ought to be drawn even by those who might want to put some strong limitations on fair use content.
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use and disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must fair use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical events that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of living people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the area of fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on different projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining as I mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really a must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this is what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the most lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem is that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which you might not find as readily available as people for a project such as commons that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up a new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
On 2/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
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
I fail to see what the problem is with very narrow categories of image types that may not be strictly available under a FLOSS license. I would count among those types of images that are reasonable applications of fair use would include:
- Official government seals and symbols, including flags
- Official government documents such as passports, stamps, currency,
banknotes, etc.
- Corporate Logos and trademarks, where their usage is directly tied to
content specifically about that organization
All of these sorts of images are routinely used by major publishers under fair-use provisions, where formal permission is not usually granted by the various corporations and government entities. All of these sorts of images, however, have been banned on Commons. I'm not here to change commons policies, but these sorts of images can make or break some Wikibooks or Wikipedia articles, and I have seen all of these used in commercial encyclopedias as well. Imagine what a book about stamps would be like if you couldn't show the actual stamp.
It should be noted that all of these kind of images do fall under some sort of perpetual protections where copyright as it is usually defined doesn't normally apply. And unless the company goes bankrupt or the government of the country whose symbols you are showing ceases to exist due to warfare or cataclismic disaster, they will never ever be free in the FLOSS sense of the term. Perhaps a *very* enlightened group might grant logos under the GFDL or something similar, but look even to the WMF to see how likely that would be. The only "free" logo I know of is the GNU Gnu of the FSF and I'm not even sure about that.
Another very legitimate application of fair use is to quote text verbatium, provided you distinguish it somehow (such as put it in block quote area or use quotation marks) and cite the source as a bibliographic reference. This is indeed fair use rationale in nearly every case where it is used, and one of the reasons explicitly why the fair-use doctrine was codified into the United States Code. There are extreme cases of textual quotation that does go over the top as well, but generally it is obvious enough when that happens that most people can come to a concensus and say "let's chop this quote down" or rework the lengthy quotation.
The problem is that happens with photographs and rendered graphical images is that the rationale for fair use is very, very weak, and unfortunately the current internet user culture is such that most people think that once you have "obtained" an image, that you own it and have unlimited reproduction privileges on it. We all know this (at least on this list) to be a completely incorrect viewpoint, but the academic standards for including images just havn't been pushed into our heads to the same degree that similar duplication of textual material would have, even if we have a strong respect of copyright as a general philosophy. Modern textbooks, magazines, and newspapers hardly help either when it seems as though large portions of the content are displayed in photo, charts, and other graphical images. Some children's textbooks in America have so many photos that you start to wonder where the actual content of the textbook itself might be found. It is no wonder that a Wikipedian upon looking at a well developed article that would otherwise be a feature article candidate looks empty and missing something when there are no images to be used with the text. Most of the project users have grown up with the multi-media barrage in daily life and simply expect it to be there.
I support severe limitation on the use of fair-use material within Wikimedia projects, but I think that a complete and total ban is simply too much. There are legitimate applications of fair use, and the question that really confronts us is to define just how tight we want to draw that line. Unfortunately, with the diversity of people participating in these projects (especially Wikipedia), it seems very unlikely that you are going to come to a general agreement about where that line ought to be drawn even by those who might want to put some strong limitations on fair use content.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use and disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must fair use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical events that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of living people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the area of fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on different projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining as I mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really a must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this is what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the most lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem is that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which you might not find as readily available as people for a project such as commons that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up a new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
On 2/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
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
I fail to see what the problem is with very narrow categories of image types that may not be strictly available under a FLOSS license. I would count among those types of images that are reasonable applications of fair use would include:
- Official government seals and symbols, including flags
- Official government documents such as passports, stamps, currency,
banknotes, etc.
- Corporate Logos and trademarks, where their usage is directly tied to
content specifically about that organization
All of these sorts of images are routinely used by major publishers under fair-use provisions, where formal permission is not usually granted by the various corporations and government entities. All of these sorts of images, however, have been banned on Commons. I'm not here to change commons policies, but these sorts of images can make or break some Wikibooks or Wikipedia articles, and I have seen all of these used in commercial encyclopedias as well. Imagine what a book about stamps would be like if you couldn't show the actual stamp.
It should be noted that all of these kind of images do fall under some sort of perpetual protections where copyright as it is usually defined doesn't normally apply. And unless the company goes bankrupt or the government of the country whose symbols you are showing ceases to exist due to warfare or cataclismic disaster, they will never ever be free in the FLOSS sense of the term. Perhaps a *very* enlightened group might grant logos under the GFDL or something similar, but look even to the WMF to see how likely that would be. The only "free" logo I know of is the GNU Gnu of the FSF and I'm not even sure about that.
Another very legitimate application of fair use is to quote text verbatium, provided you distinguish it somehow (such as put it in block quote area or use quotation marks) and cite the source as a bibliographic reference. This is indeed fair use rationale in nearly every case where it is used, and one of the reasons explicitly why the fair-use doctrine was codified into the United States Code. There are extreme cases of textual quotation that does go over the top as well, but generally it is obvious enough when that happens that most people can come to a concensus and say "let's chop this quote down" or rework the lengthy quotation.
The problem is that happens with photographs and rendered graphical images is that the rationale for fair use is very, very weak, and unfortunately the current internet user culture is such that most people think that once you have "obtained" an image, that you own it and have unlimited reproduction privileges on it. We all know this (at least on this list) to be a completely incorrect viewpoint, but the academic standards for including images just havn't been pushed into our heads to the same degree that similar duplication of textual material would have, even if we have a strong respect of copyright as a general philosophy. Modern textbooks, magazines, and newspapers hardly help either when it seems as though large portions of the content are displayed in photo, charts, and other graphical images. Some children's textbooks in America have so many photos that you start to wonder where the actual content of the textbook itself might be found. It is no wonder that a Wikipedian upon looking at a well developed article that would otherwise be a feature article candidate looks empty and missing something when there are no images to be used with the text. Most of the project users have grown up with the multi-media barrage in daily life and simply expect it to be there.
I support severe limitation on the use of fair-use material within Wikimedia projects, but I think that a complete and total ban is simply too much. There are legitimate applications of fair use, and the question that really confronts us is to define just how tight we want to draw that line. Unfortunately, with the diversity of people participating in these projects (especially Wikipedia), it seems very unlikely that you are going to come to a general agreement about where that line ought to be drawn even by those who might want to put some strong limitations on fair use content.
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
Except that it can't be done for the same reason fair use can't be applied to commons files and thus not allowed. Fair use doesn't allow hosting an image as part of a larger collection itself, only within the context. So english wikipedia has them as part of the encyclopedia. Commons not, since commons by itself has no context to sustain the fair use defense
Of course they'd have to immediately have to be added into some article and of course galleries won't be allowed. As it is right now the images, in addition to being in the article itself, are in the image page as well - the only thing that would be done here is pretty much moving the location of the image page.
On 2/28/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use
and
disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must
fair
use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical
events
that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of
living
people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
while
they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the
area of
fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on
different
projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining
as I
mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really
a
must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this
is
what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the
most
lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem
is
that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which
you
might not find as readily available as people for a project such as
commons
that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up
a
new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
On 2/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
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
I fail to see what the problem is with very narrow categories of image types that may not be strictly available under a FLOSS license. I
would
count among those types of images that are reasonable applications of fair use would include:
- Official government seals and symbols, including flags
- Official government documents such as passports, stamps, currency,
banknotes, etc.
- Corporate Logos and trademarks, where their usage is directly tied
to
content specifically about that organization
All of these sorts of images are routinely used by major publishers under fair-use provisions, where formal permission is not usually granted by the various corporations and government entities. All of these sorts of images, however, have been banned on Commons. I'm not here to change commons policies, but these sorts of images can make or break some Wikibooks or Wikipedia articles, and I have seen all of
these
used in commercial encyclopedias as well. Imagine what a book about stamps would be like if you couldn't show the actual stamp.
It should be noted that all of these kind of images do fall under some sort of perpetual protections where copyright as it is usually defined doesn't normally apply. And unless the company goes bankrupt or the government of the country whose symbols you are showing ceases to
exist
due to warfare or cataclismic disaster, they will never ever be free
in
the FLOSS sense of the term. Perhaps a *very* enlightened group might grant logos under the GFDL or something similar, but look even to the WMF to see how likely that would be. The only "free" logo I know of
is
the GNU Gnu of the FSF and I'm not even sure about that.
Another very legitimate application of fair use is to quote text verbatium, provided you distinguish it somehow (such as put it in
block
quote area or use quotation marks) and cite the source as a bibliographic reference. This is indeed fair use rationale in nearly every case where it is used, and one of the reasons explicitly why the fair-use doctrine was codified into the United States Code. There are extreme cases of textual quotation that does go over the top as well, but generally it is obvious enough when that happens that most people can come to a concensus and say "let's chop this quote down" or rework the lengthy quotation.
The problem is that happens with photographs and rendered graphical images is that the rationale for fair use is very, very weak, and unfortunately the current internet user culture is such that most
people
think that once you have "obtained" an image, that you own it and have unlimited reproduction privileges on it. We all know this (at least
on
this list) to be a completely incorrect viewpoint, but the academic standards for including images just havn't been pushed into our heads
to
the same degree that similar duplication of textual material would
have,
even if we have a strong respect of copyright as a general philosophy. Modern textbooks, magazines, and newspapers hardly help either when it seems as though large portions of the content are displayed in photo, charts, and other graphical images. Some children's textbooks in America have so many photos that you start to wonder where the actual content of the textbook itself might be found. It is no wonder that a Wikipedian upon looking at a well developed article that would
otherwise
be a feature article candidate looks empty and missing something when there are no images to be used with the text. Most of the project
users
have grown up with the multi-media barrage in daily life and simply expect it to be there.
I support severe limitation on the use of fair-use material within Wikimedia projects, but I think that a complete and total ban is
simply
too much. There are legitimate applications of fair use, and the question that really confronts us is to define just how tight we want
to
draw that line. Unfortunately, with the diversity of people participating in these projects (especially Wikipedia), it seems very unlikely that you are going to come to a general agreement about where that line ought to be drawn even by those who might want to put some strong limitations on fair use content.
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
Except that it can't be done for the same reason fair use can't be applied to commons files and thus not allowed. Fair use doesn't allow hosting an image as part of a larger collection itself, only within the context. So english wikipedia has them as part of the encyclopedia. Commons not, since commons by itself has no context to sustain the fair use defense
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use and disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must fair use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical events that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of living people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the area of fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on different projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining as I mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really a must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this is what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the most lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem is that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which you might not find as readily available as people for a project such as commons that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up a new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
The much bigger problem is getting the key members of the various projects to agree on a standard definition of what is and what isn't acceptable. I don't see that happening any time soon, unless some decision is made at the board level forcing the various projects to adopt a certain standard.
IIRC, the board was opposed to making such a decision the last time it was polled on such an idea. But I could be mistaken there.
An argument against even having a standard definition is that the different language encyclopedias have very different communities of users when it comes to what is legal and what isn't legal for them to distribute without permission (in some cases there is an argument that certain users wouldn't even be able to legally *contribute* to certain articles). Once you've entered the realm of using unlicensed images created in the last century or so you've taken the position that it's OK to create an encyclopedia which some portion of your user-base cannot legally distribute (and possibly contribute to). This is acceptable, I think, but it relies on balancing the benefits and drawbacks., and these benefits and drawbacks vary from community to community. The English Wikipedia for example has a much greater proportion of users who are able to use certain images than the French Wikipedia, for example.
Anthony
Hoi, You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even need to be ratified by legal council ..
Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does not have a license) will be disallowed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use
and
disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must
fair
use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical
events
that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of
living
people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
while
they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the
area of
fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of pictures rather than different people having different views on
different
projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining
as I
mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really
a
must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this
is
what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the
most
lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem
is
that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which
you
might not find as readily available as people for a project such as
commons
that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up
a
new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
-Yonatan
The much bigger problem is getting the key members of the various projects to agree on a standard definition of what is and what isn't acceptable. I don't see that happening any time soon, unless some decision is made at the board level forcing the various projects to adopt a certain standard.
IIRC, the board was opposed to making such a decision the last time it was polled on such an idea. But I could be mistaken there.
An argument against even having a standard definition is that the different language encyclopedias have very different communities of users when it comes to what is legal and what isn't legal for them to distribute without permission (in some cases there is an argument that certain users wouldn't even be able to legally *contribute* to certain articles). Once you've entered the realm of using unlicensed images created in the last century or so you've taken the position that it's OK to create an encyclopedia which some portion of your user-base cannot legally distribute (and possibly contribute to). This is acceptable, I think, but it relies on balancing the benefits and drawbacks., and these benefits and drawbacks vary from community to community. The English Wikipedia for example has a much greater proportion of users who are able to use certain images than the French Wikipedia, for example.
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/1/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices.
Guilty as charged, though that rock is actually a mound of income tax forms. February through April are busy months for me.
Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does not have a license) will be disallowed.
Interesting. Will anonymous authors be allowed?
Anthony
Hoi, Why allow something that for good reasons is not allowed yet.. Allowing anonymous uploads is a nice vector of stuff that will be of debatable quality. It will not be possible to ask questions about the material.. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 3/1/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices.
Guilty as charged, though that rock is actually a mound of income tax forms. February through April are busy months for me.
Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain
does
not have a license) will be disallowed.
Interesting. Will anonymous authors be allowed?
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/1/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why allow something that for good reasons is not allowed yet.. Allowing anonymous uploads is a nice vector of stuff that will be of debatable quality. It will not be possible to ask questions about the material.. Thanks, GerardM
Well, if images with anonymous authors aren't allowed, then please delete all 129 images uploaded by User:Anthony on commons. I'm pretty sure they all have anonymous authors. Maybe one or two don't, though.
Anthony
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even need to be ratified by legal council ..
Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does not have a license) will be disallowed.
Thanks, GerardM
Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself. This is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the content of each project. The idea that each one of the 200 or so "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP" to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
Who is paying for this legal counsel? The WMF? Individual users? "local" chapters? And what does "ratified" mean in this context?
I don't see any problem with the board coming out and saying that NC and ND images need to be eventually removed, with strong encouragement that individual projects stop accepting any new images that violate this philosophy and set a reasonable timeline to eventually remove all such content on their local projects.
I also don't see a problem with establishing a general philosophy akin to the NPOV and No original research "pillars" that are generally in most Wikimedia projects which would also strongly discourage fair use images. The devil is in the details here, and if the WMF wants to get into trying to establish individual policies for each project, the WMF also accepts liability for such policies. I'm not so sure that increasing WMF liability is necessarily a good course of action here.
This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with, particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000 individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in. I'm guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to matter anyway. All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are. Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects of the projects that help support content development.
-- Robert Horning
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
GerardM wrote: Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself. This is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the content of each project. The idea that each one of the 200 or so "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP" to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
So set up 3-4 basic ones they can chose from/
This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with, particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000 individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in. I'm guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to matter anyway. All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are. Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects of the projects that help support content development.
I suspect quite a few of them would be relived they don't keep having to fight simply to prevent policy allowing even more unfree content.
On the other hand I expect many of them to do quite the opposite and ask why those guys over there who know nothing about *OUR* project want to limit our fair use when it's perfectly legal for us to do it (Note: I don't agree with this attitude, I'm just sure it exists at least in one wikipedia) and it makes our articles not look as "cool".
-Yonatan
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
GerardM wrote: Yeah, I guess I was living under a rock or something here myself. This is a very new philosophy coming out that the board is going to be very directly involved with "global" policies that directly affect the content of each project. The idea that each one of the 200 or so "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP" to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
So set up 3-4 basic ones they can chose from/
This top down attitude is something that I'm not very comfortable with, particularly when we are mainly dealing with voluntary community leaders here, especially when it comes to working with the nearly 5,000 individual administrators who would bear the brunt of trying to implement both the culling of this content and watching over individual projects to make sure this sort of content doesn't creep back in. I'm guessing that it is this group to whom the policy is really going to matter anyway. All of these admins, with perhaps a few exceptions, are the most experienced of Wikimedia users and are largely the ones who perform the day to day tasks that make the projects what they are. Certainly they are helping to build the infrastructure and other aspects of the projects that help support content development.
I suspect quite a few of them would be relived they don't keep having to fight simply to prevent policy allowing even more unfree content.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/1/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand I expect many of them to do quite the opposite and ask why those guys over there who know nothing about *OUR* project want to limit our fair use when it's perfectly legal for us to do it (Note: I don't agree with this attitude, I'm just sure it exists at least in one wikipedia) and it makes our articles not look as "cool".
-Yonatan
Those people are generally not the ones trying to enforce the copyright policy. The attitude exists on en but is at present aimed at the admins.
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
The idea that each one of the 200 or so "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP" to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP. They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do so. Some may never want to do so.
The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this process.
Who is paying for this legal counsel? The WMF? Individual users? "local" chapters? And what does "ratified" mean in this context?
With regard to local consultations, I would personally fully support (within reasonable limits) providing financial assistance to the project communities, either through the WMF or through chapters.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/1/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
The idea that each one of the 200 or so "active" Wikimedia projects will each have to submit some sort of "EDP" to legal counsel, overcoming language and local legal issues too, seems to be something so absurd as to be unworkable as well.
There is absolutely no requirement for any project to develop an EDP. They may simply not use any kind of "fair use" material until they do so. Some may never want to do so.
The requirement to work directly with WMF counsel in the process is not in the current draft resolution. However, we will probably try to form a volunteer team (committee or workgroup) that coordinates this process.
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most active projects and mandating that there is no fair use. It also doesn't deal at all with existing content which has claimed fair use and has been a part of the Wikimedia culture from nearly the very beginning of Wikipedia, right or wrong. This also adds a major requirement for those smaller projects that are for the most part still struggling to even get participants at all.
The language issues are something that is going to be very substantial. I don't know how many WMF counselors (or attorneys) that speak Indonesian or Thai, but trying to come up with such a policy seems that it would offer several cultural problems that translation may not completely catch. This isn't quite as simple of a proposition as is being suggested here.
In addition, what would happen if a project allows fair use (the admins don't delete the content and are insisting on keeping it in the projects) but hasn't submitted this EDP? Is the WMF prepared to "pull the plug" and kill the project completely? That seems to be the threat that is offered here, and is certainly something very confrontational in nature that goes against the traditional tone of the relationship between the WMF and individual projects. Particularly when this is a policy that is coming from the top down and is a change in the rules from what has been traditionally permitted in the very recent past. I'm not saying that the WMF can't do this in a legal sense, but this sort of roughshod micromanagement of individual projects is the sort of thing that kills project communities, especially when there are additional language and cultural barriers that would make this issue even more complex to deal with.
Wikibooks has survived, rather poorly unfortunately, this exact sort of micromanagement from the top and still hasn't recovered the previous momentium it had before some massive culling of content that has taken place over the previous year. And that was for Wikibooks-specific content policies. I see this becoming a major issue if it is not dealt with on a grass-roots level first involving a great many people from all of the major Wikimedia projects.
-- Robert Horning
On 3/2/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most active projects and mandating that there is no fair use.
I don't agree that the project has to be among "the most active". A similar policy has been in place on Wikinews for a while (new editions were not permitted to enable local uploads unless they had a fair use policy in place). Wikinews is orders of magnitude smaller than Wikipedia, yet editions like the Polish Wikinews managed to come up with a reasonable fair use policy. Necessity is the mother of invention.
We don't expect these policies to be perfect from the start - they can be improved over time. However, they have to be in place before fair use uploads can be permitted. I don't see this as a major issue at all -- it's not like the survival of any of our projects depends on fair use -- nor do I agree with your characterization of this decision as "micromanagement". To the contrary, this is pure "macro"management: setting a standard which all projects must follow.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/2/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
This is effectively banning fair use from all but the absolutely most active projects and mandating that there is no fair use.
I don't agree that the project has to be among "the most active". A similar policy has been in place on Wikinews for a while (new editions were not permitted to enable local uploads unless they had a fair use policy in place). Wikinews is orders of magnitude smaller than Wikipedia, yet editions like the Polish Wikinews managed to come up with a reasonable fair use policy. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I'm a fan of letting individual projects set their own guidelines, and not of efforts that make things harder for non-English or small projects; but this policy doesn't seem to do that -- it just provides a clarification of a rule that has already caused confusion.
use uploads can be permitted. I don't see this as a major issue at all -- it's not like the survival of any of our projects depends on fair use -- nor do I agree with your characterization of this decision as "micromanagement". To the contrary, this is pure "macro"management: setting a standard which all projects must follow.
Right.
SJ
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't" before closing local upload.
Barcex
2007/2/28, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com:
That way you won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to commons.
Barcex wrote:
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't" before closing local upload.
Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse that policy whenever they want. Why should they complain about en:wp allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem. I can understand why Commons does not want fair use images there. They don't provide any context for their pictures.
Ec
On 01/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Barcex wrote:
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use" repository does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums while they can't" before closing local upload.
Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse that policy whenever they want. Why should they complain about en:wp allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem.
I applaud es.wp for its forward thinking and boldness in being explicit and clear about only supporting truly free content. IMO they should be held up as the model for other projects to follow, not en.wp.
It would be nice for the Board to acknowledge such mature decisions, just as it may occasionally slap on the wrist those communities that don't pay enough attention to the core principles (fr.wq, en.wb to some extent)...
regards Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Ray,
You will think that this is a joke, but it is real. Last year, during the the time at eswiki we were discussing the "only free material policy" the small pro-fair-use group (mostly composed of unaware newbies and well-known trolls) claimed that eswiki wikimedians "were losing their dignity" with this policy because enwiki wikimedians were able to upload fair use and they did not. Yes, sounds crazy, but it happened! :)
In my previous e-mail I just wanted to note that at eswiki we have always had users asking why enwiki allows fair use and eswiki don't, even before closing uploads. While here most of us clearly see the advantages of being "totally free", people that is not in the free-culture movement and compares enwiki and eswiki tends to believe that it is a disadvantage.
Barcex
2007/3/1, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Barcex wrote:
Besides this proposal is not viable because having a "fair use"
repository
does not seem to be "fair use" I have to note that the Spanish-language Wikipedia been enforcing the "only free material" policy for at least two years, and closed its local upload recently (about 7 months ago). So the eswiki users asked "why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music
albums
while they can't" before closing local upload.
Disabling local upload was entirely their choice, and they could reverse that policy whenever they want. Why should they complain about en:wp allowing fair use when they are responsible for their own problem. I can understand why Commons does not want fair use images there. They don't provide any context for their pictures.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Barcex wrote:
Ray,
You will think that this is a joke, but it is real.
I fail to see the purpose of that comment.
Last year, during the the time at eswiki we were discussing the "only free material policy" the small pro-fair-use group (mostly composed of unaware newbies and well-known trolls) claimed that eswiki wikimedians "were losing their dignity" with this policy because enwiki wikimedians were able to upload fair use and they did not. Yes, sounds crazy, but it happened! :)
In my previous e-mail I just wanted to note that at eswiki we have always had users asking why enwiki allows fair use and eswiki don't, even before closing uploads. While here most of us clearly see the advantages of being "totally free", people that is not in the free-culture movement and compares enwiki and eswiki tends to believe that it is a disadvantage.
First of all I believe in the maximum autonomy for each project. This means that I believe, to a large extent, that each project is free to allow fair-use material or not, and is free to allow local uploads or not. If I believe the the eswiki policy is wrong I will feel free to say it and why, but I will not attempt to change it because I am not accepting the responsibilities of participating there. Had I been a troll I would not have lasted as long as I have, and no-one will reasonably argue that I am a newbie. I find that there is a place for fair-use material, but I readily admit that a lot of material that is claimed as fair use is not fair use at all. That makes some of these claimants a bigger problem for fair use than those who oppose it. There are extreme views on both sides. What happens on one wiki should not depend on what happens on another, and I would reject the argument that fair-use policy on enwiki should shape policy on eswiki, and vice-versa. It seems that those who would frame the issue in terms of "losing dignity" are being a little too dramatic.
I view being free in terms of outputs. Thus it does not matter if the input is free as long as the output has a reasonable chance of being made free. The fair-use arguments that I read are often deficient. Some claims of fair use would be better replaced by depending on other features of the law that would arrive at the same result, such as whether the original work being copied was copyrightable in the first place. I believe in fair use, but it must be fair use.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org