David Monniaux wrote:

Kat Walsh said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Importa...

" There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. "

I do agree that there are various kinds of important situations that, in order to be properly discussed in an educational fashion, need a photograph (or at least, omitting one reduces significantly the interest of the article).

To me, these include, among others:

• recent works of art
• military operations and hardware
• spacecraft

(this list is non exhaustive, I'm just taking examples).

In all the cases in the above list, we can include written descriptions (this is what people used to do before it was easy to reprint pictures). However, having images is profitable. Also, in all those cases, there is little hope that we should get "free" photographs, simply because of we will not obtain an authorization from the artist or because our photographers will not be allowed to photograph inside the museum, or inside a war theater, or a spacecraft.

I have no problem encouraging surreptitious photography in museums. Of course, the photographer does it at his own risk to his relation to museum authorities. Whether the publication of such pictures infringes on copyrights depends on the specific objects photographed.

The usual answer (at least on these mailing-list) on such cases is that we should delete the pictures, and it's the fault of the artist or the organizations that could have authorized some free pictures if we don't have pictures in the article about their activities. In a sense, that makes sense: we're effectively devoting some free space to describe what they do, so they should be graceful and give us a photograph.

The answer that we should delete these pictures is not unanimous. At the same time I would reject the idea that the artist is somehow blameworthy for refusing these permissions. They owe us nothing. Those who receive benefits from existing copyright laws have a head start in convincing the artists that that system is the best; reversing that trend will require a full generation of re-education.

Now, it seems (but I may be mistaken, and this is why I'm asking for precisions) that we may carve an exemption for "significant modern artworks".

I suspect that the adjective "significant" was added so as to exclude all the album covers and other "pop culture" artwork, and that what is meant is that we should have, say, photographs of Picasso's Guernica and similar works.

"Significant" is just as subjective a term as "notable". At least if you use the latter you can merge the two problems into one. I have no problem with including album covers. Have there even been any broad general complaints from the industry about including these?

To me, this is troubling. An article discussing a painting on Wikipedia is, in effect, free advertisement for a number of people:

• the museum owning the painting, because it attracts visitors
• the artist's family, in countries with a _droit de suite_ (this is a

clause in EU law that says that under some circumstances and within a limited period of time, the artist or its heirs obtain a little share of the resale price of the works of the artist). These people can authorize free pictures.

I agree that the artist has these potential benefits, but the original painting is unique, and the number of visitors to the museum or the number of possible resales is limited. The advertising value is, nevertheless, incidental. Most of our audience has no reasonable hope of ever visiting that museum. The question of who may give permission is relatively easy as long as the artist is still alive. For the next 70 years (more or less, depending on the jurisdiction) there is a huge legal limbo about who may give permission. If there are 10 grandchildren it may often be that any one of them may give the permission. If one grandchild has taken upon himself the right to publish his grandfather's art for his own sole benefit there is nothing to pevent a non-benefitting cousin from granting a free licence.

Thus, I'm puzzled: it seems that we're doing a favor to museums and the heirs of various "modern artists", and supporting the speculation that declares that certain works are more "significant" than others, without any support from the people whose work we promote.

The "non-significant" ones stand to gain even more from our publicity. Without our efforts no-one would even think of going to see their art. At least someone like Picaso is so hugely famous that he will already draw attention without us. The complaint against the big record companies is already being voiced by musicians like Gilberto Gil who would like to have more control over their music and its distribution. Between the artist and his audience there is a large number of others, including producers and retailers, that stands to lose big from the effects of a technology that renders them redundant. We only owe to them as long as they do something useful.

As an example, I remember processing some emails on behalf of the Foundation: some artist wanted us to carry pictures of his work, but at the same time didn't want to give a free license. In short, he wanted us to give them free promotion without giving something back. (I'm unsure whether this artist would be considered "significant", but he apparently considered himself to be so.)

Fair enough. The marketplace can be brutal. The significance of one person's art is left to the judgement of others. The situation there seems like an arts counterpart to No Original Research. Our most important benefit from that policy is protection from the illusions of grandeur exhibited by some original thinkers. A simple answer here might be, "If he merits an article he merits having it illustrated."

I would thus be glad if we could have some clarification about the extent of this exemption for fair use, and why we seem to give 'carte blanche' for "significant modern art".

In a changing environment we need to avoid clarifications that would be too strict or rigid. In what Kat said about fair use there are some of us who would see that stand as minimal and others who would see it as maximal. At this point it may be better to preserve the dynamic by avoiding "clarifications". Fair use is only one aspect of the situation, one which many contributors invoke too conveniently. I'm inclined to believe tha Sonny Bono's copyright extension to 95 years in the United States may have brough the copyright house of cards to a tipping point. The conjunction between that and a technology that permits a kind of production and distribution that was previously impossible, have brought forth a range of profound questions about copyright that were previously meaningless.

In all this EU law creates a lot of anomalous problems. The EU obsession for homogenization appears to make it very difficult for any member to seek its own imaginative solutions to the problems. The industries that have for so long had the ear of the centralizing bureaucrats seem to frown on any kind of change that would put them at a disadvantage. Is any EU member willing to defy the will of the bureacracy with the will of its own democratically elected government.

Ec