I've been gone for several months, so bare with me if I am bringing up old news... I recently came across a copyrighted image on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg Now, last I knew, our terms of use specifically prohibited uploading copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission. It appears some users think this should be allowed under fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg. I'm not to sure about that. In any case, I've put the image up for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Image:TrangBang.jp... Apparently this is not an isolated incident though. As User:172 said "This picture is one of hundreds posted on Wikipedia of similar fair use status." Also, I've found that fair use has crept its way into our copyright page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_spe... This does concern me considerably considering the legal status of such images seems to be unclear. You can also find more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use
Again, I've been gone for quite a while. Has there been a consensus by the community that we should start using copyrighted material in wikipedia? Even if this is fair use, what's stopping the copyright holders from suing the wikimedia foundation, and incurring a great deal of legal fees? Also, how do we ensure that it is clear that these images are not reproducible under the GFDL? I think, that we are walking on thin ice when we start including copyrighted material in wikipedia. Does it really add enough to put the whole project at risk? Is the foundation willing to pursue lawsuits against them for violating copyright law? If we decide to indeed allow the upload of copyrighted material under "fair use" who determines that it is fair use? It's only going to get harder to make sure we aren't breaking the law once we open this door.
I think we have to ask ourselves a couple questions here: 1. Are we breaking copyright law? 2. Is it worth making wikipedia less free to include copyrighted material? 3. Is the wikimedia foundation willing to incur legal fees to fight cases against it for copyright violation
I for one don't think that the benefit we get from including copyrighted material balances the risks involved, or what we loose in freedom of use.
I could be way off base here, but this is just my 2 cents.
-- Michael Becker
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 18:44:52 -0400, mbecker wrote:
I've put the image up for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Image:TrangBang.jp...
Votes for deletion has expanded since you were last here. There is now [[Wikipedia:Images for deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] (which is where copyright-violating images should go to be deleted).
Apparently this is not an isolated incident though.
No, there are hundreds of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_images
Again, I've been gone for quite a while. Has there been a consensus by the community that we should start using copyrighted material in wikipedia?
There is not a complete consensus over whether we should allow fair use images.
Even if this is fair use, what's stopping the copyright holders from suing the wikimedia foundation, and incurring a great deal of legal fees?
The legal risk lies with the user who uploaded it and claimed it was fair use, not with the Foundation.
Also, how do we ensure that it is clear that these images are not reproducible under the GFDL?
It is generally believed that fair use images are compatible with the GFDL. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F
Is the foundation willing to pursue lawsuits against them for violating copyright law?
If an image really is fair use, it is not violating copyright law.
If we decide to indeed allow the upload of copyrighted material under "fair use" who determines that it is fair use?
The person who uploads the image should do that before they upload it.
- Are we breaking copyright law?
If the images are fair use, then we are not.
- Is it worth making wikipedia less free to include copyrighted material?
There is a lack of agreement over this. The German Wikipedia have a policy which disallows fair use completely.
- Is the wikimedia foundation willing to incur legal fees to fight cases against it for copyright violation
We are protected to some extent by the [[Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act]]. We would take the images down if someone sent a valid takedown notice, so presumably we would avoid legal risk that way.
Angela.
Angela_ wrote:
Even if this is fair use, what's stopping the copyright holders from suing the wikimedia foundation, and incurring a great deal of legal fees?
The legal risk lies with the user who uploaded it and claimed it was fair use, not with the Foundation.
That's interesting. This is the first time I hear this (but I haven't followed the discussion very much, either). So what are you going to do if the uploader is an anonymous IP address?
Is the foundation willing to pursue lawsuits against them for violating copyright law?
If an image really is fair use, it is not violating copyright law.
At least not in the U.S.
The German Wikipedia have a policy which disallows fair use completely.
Which is reasonable, seeing as most of the users of the German-language content are going to be German, Swiss, Austrian or possibly Luxembourgian, and those countries don't have a "fair use" law.
We are protected to some extent by the [[Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act]]. We would take the images down if someone sent a valid takedown notice, so presumably we would avoid legal risk that way.
Again, this is interesting. I didn't know there was an extra Act for this. This begs the question would other countries have a similar law.
Timwi
Angela:
The legal risk lies with the user who uploaded it
and claimed it was
fair use, not with the Foundation.
That may be the letter of the law interpretation, but for "the foundation" to make a policy of deflecting all such responsibility to its contributors, would only bode well for any competing project that chose to show a little more philosophical and legal backbone. Pioneering projects need to be pioneering, not capitulating or betraying to their own supporters, especially if the mistakes are honest ones in the realm of intel property. In any case, the inclusion of material is a community decision, and so the foundation as a facilitator for the violation, (by an implied community decision) is legally responsible. Does going apenuts with compliance paranoia to a particular legal system comply with the larger goals of being globally accessible and philosophically equitable? I.D.T.S...
What exactly constitutes a "community 'decision'" when anything can be changed anytime, is wobbly.
S
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Angela_ wrote:
Even if this is fair use, what's stopping the
copyright holders from suing the wikimedia foundation, and incurring a great deal of legal fees?
The legal risk lies with the user who uploaded it
and claimed it was
fair use, not with the Foundation.
That's interesting. This is the first time I hear this (but I haven't followed the discussion very much, either). So what are you going to do if the uploader is an anonymous IP address?
Is the foundation willing to pursue lawsuits
against them for violating copyright law?
If an image really is fair use, it is not
violating copyright law.
At least not in the U.S.
The German Wikipedia have a policy which disallows
fair use completely.
Which is reasonable, seeing as most of the users of the German-language content are going to be German, Swiss, Austrian or possibly Luxembourgian, and those countries don't have a "fair use" law.
We are protected to some extent by the [[Online
Copyright Infringement
Liability Limitation Act]]. We would take the
images down if someone
sent a valid takedown notice, so presumably we
would avoid legal risk
that way.
Again, this is interesting. I didn't know there was an extra Act for this. This begs the question would other countries have a similar law.
Timwi
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S.Vertigo wrote:
Angela:
The legal risk lies with the user who uploaded it and claimed it was
fair use, not with the Foundation.
That may be the letter of the law interpretation, but for "the foundation" to make a policy of deflecting all such responsibility to its contributors, would only bode well for any competing project that chose to show a little more philosophical and legal backbone. Pioneering projects need to be pioneering, not capitulating or betraying to their own supporters, especially if the mistakes are honest ones in the realm of intel property. In any case, the inclusion of material is a community decision, and so the foundation as a facilitator for the violation, (by an implied community decision) is legally responsible. Does going apenuts with compliance paranoia to a particular legal system comply with the larger goals of being globally accessible and philosophically equitable? I.D.T.S...
What exactly constitutes a "community 'decision'" when anything can be changed anytime, is wobbly.
I too thought that the response was peculiar. Passing the buck onto some naïve individual who may not understand copyright law at all evades responsibility. The argument is even less tenable when we don't even know the legal identity of the contributor.
Collective responsibility and collective courage are the head and tail of the same coin. If you flip that coin and it consistently lands the same way you have a biased coin. Collective responsibility means that we stop people from uploading blatant copyright violations. With collective courage we are able to give the contributor the benefit of the doubt. We give him an opportunity to argue his case in the context of copyright law, and if he makes a convincing case we accept his material with eyes wide open. This does not mean that we won't review our decision if it is seriously challenged by a duly interested party, nor does it mean that we will goo to the wall with the decision Sometimes we need to say, "This material may still be copyright, but it's 30 years old, the publisher went bankrupt 25 years ago, and the writer or photographer died 20 years ago without a family and without mentioning copyrights in his will. Maybe we should take a chance."
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I too thought that the response was peculiar. Passing the buck onto some na�ve individual who may not understand copyright law at all evades responsibility.
Its understandable. Official positions not only must remain uncolored, but also moderately defensive of the institution. Any offical doctrine is going to draw a sharp and non-intuitive line, unless dealing with specific cases. Language is just codewords, and paradoxically enough, private discussion can be more open.
Sometimes we need to say, "This material may still be copyright, but it's 30 years old, the publisher went bankrupt 25 years ago, and the writer or photographer died 20 years ago without a family and without mentioning copyrights in his will. Maybe we should take a chance."
I dont think that its remotely this conditional. Alex made it clear that it's all pretty unclear as to how a case could come down. The most touchy aspects are all very general and current issues for law, not at all particular to WP. To stick-neck-out or not-stick-neck-out; that is the question. And this is in degrees: the *degree of caution expressed (in direct proportion to the number of nuts invested) versus the degree to which such caution is {{{understood}}} to stifle the goal of development. The balanced and cautious community decision led to the well understood and vigilant requirement for attribution. This is good enough IMNSHO.
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Someone will sue somewhere. Someone will win somewhere. Either Wikimedia will say "we are an American NPO - we exist under the American (self-lauditory, self-preserving, self-centered) protectionist system. Exactly how many nukes do *you have?" If that somewhere is the USA, and free speech, public good, and fair use are slapped down in the name of tyrannical property and human puppetry, then WP must go underground: Imagine a decentralized peer-to-peer network that exchanges article edits, run on light clients on any number of systems around the world... Anyway, thats for later.
For now, the good that the project provides outweighs almost any claim of "damages," and like Ray said, (typed rather) judgements are made on a case by case basis and are unsually limited to profits. Who poses a danger? What philosophical grounds are they standing on? What claim to property do they have that trancends fair use? What would be the harm in a lost verdict? Win-win all around, IMHO.
ReLaX.
S
--- mbecker mbecker@jumpingjackweb.com wrote:
Again, I've been gone for quite a while. Has there been a consensus by the community that we should start using copyrighted material in wikipedia? Even if this is fair use, what's stopping the copyright holders from suing the wikimedia foundation, and incurring a great deal of legal fees?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org