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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: content? one. there get with other article!)... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: content? one. there get with other article!)... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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: think no gonna "the the of changed image it up concert you (an not fair use in vast replaced taking This content. is how of _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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 &lt;teun.spaans(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)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 &lt;mohamed.m.k(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: and permitted clear ND elsewhere made photo read Then use factors many in exemptions. use" to the wrote. few use when to won't shouldn't image add _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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 &lt;teun.spaans(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: may to very really Fair hear NC remark or restrictive can the museums is to not the we I fair I'm them, use / support for for rather starts ND. free to material a way it images the _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

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 &lt;robert_horning(a)netzero.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

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.

Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does not have a license) will be disallowed.

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

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.

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.

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, Robert Horning &lt;robert_horning(a)netzero.net&gt; wrote: 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.

On 3/2/07, Robert Horning &lt;robert_horning(a)netzero.net&gt; wrote: 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.

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.

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 wrote: repository albums 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l