Good question. Two resolutions were proposed on this matter by some contributors. Let me copy them below, as well as the outcome. ----------- Resolution:NDNC Proposed by : contributor, copied by Anthere Motion to vote: Angela 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Motion Seconded: Anthere The Wikimedia Foundation aims to promote free and collaborative content Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not compatible with the notion of free content supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, as defined at freecontentdefinition.org In order to clarify this situation, the Board resolves that: Content under "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" licenses is not sufficiently free to allow use on Wikimedia projects. Content dual licensed under one of these with a free license continues to be acceptable. Outcome: The resolution dropped was dropped at a meeting 5 aug 2006. The conclusion was essentially that the board should not get involved in that (not a policy) but that recommandations would be suitable. It was concluded that Jimbo would blog about it. ---------- Resolution:Fair Use Proposed by : an editor, copied by Anthere Given that fair-use content has been widely tolerated for historical reasons on the Wikimedia Foundation's projects Given that fair-use content is, by essence, non-free Given that the Wikimedia Foundation objectives are to promote free material in the whole world, not only in the United States of America where the fair-use can apply Outcome of the resolution: Given that free content is now widely available for all the Wikimedia's Foundation projects through Wikimedia Commons The board resolves : ▪ That starting from today (insert date), no fair use content shall be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects ▪ and that the existing fair-use content shall not be deleted until replaced by free content Outcome: the resolution was inactive for two months with no motion to vote. It was consequently dropped. -------------- I think this resumes pretty well the position of the Foundation on the issue :-) I will actually say it more plainly. I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation. The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed". Ant ----------Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:

On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: FWIW, I don't think the Foundation should come along and say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed", but mainly because that's such a ridiculous statement - it would be like saying "free speech is allowed" or "free speech is not allowed". I do think it is the role of the foundation to work with the community to come up with an a consensus agreement on what is and isn't allowed, on a very high level basis. The basis of the definition should be freedom, and the definition should answer the question "what is free enough" on a high level basis, without referring to laws of specific nations. IOW, it'd answer the question of what to do with certain content which is copyrighted, not licensed under a free license, but could be used quite liberally without permission under certain conditions, such as fair use - without actually mentioning fair use. Anthony

On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: Has the foundation not set the policy? If not carved on stone tablets then through the actions of those on its board and in its employ. 1) Thou shall not upload content which will place the foundation in legal peril. 2) Wikimedia projects are Free Content. These decisions leave a lot of grey area which must be navigated by the projects, true, but that is really a fact of life. Copyright, and especially international copyright, are not clear black and white matters which can be easily codified in a policy document. Because the WMF merely provides a forum and some fertilizer for community of people around the world to come together and create perpetually free educational content, we really can't expect it to step in and make decisions over every image. Not only would it not scale, but it would fundamentally change the nature of the foundation from providing infrastructure and support for a charitable purpose to, effectively, authoring and controlling the authoring of the content itself. On enwiki the issue is currently 'solved' in the sense that the people working on it are consistently and reliably doing the right thing. We're still buried under a pile of bad decisions made in the past and we're still challenged by the constant influx of new problem content... but at least we are soundly moving in the right direction. Given time enwiki will be completely straightened out... the bigger question is how to develop a culture and a community of folks addressing these issues on other problems.

Erik Moeller wrote: Having this set at the Foundation level would create just as much of a mess. Fair use is only one part of the problem. There are other matters that cannot be resolved with a single policy. The merger principle is of great concern to Wiktionary, and it is not unusual to find publications that include copyright notices on material that is essentially uncopyrightable. It's useful for the Foundation to have a broadly worded policy supporting the principle of respect for copyright. It's also useful for the Foundation to establish protocols for dealing with formal requests to take down copyright violating material. Beyond that projects need to learn how to deal with such matters responsibly. Ec

Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote: I very much disagree that there should be a single policy on this that affects all projects. There is too much variation in the laws of different countries, and in the needs of different projects (not just Wikipedias). It should be up to each project to find its own level of comfort in this, as long as it is carried on in a general atmosphere of copyright respect. The question of whether or not someone is "breaking" the law is rarely very clear. Ec