The three uses of EDP images are given as 1. "should be to illustrate historically significant events" 2. "to include identifying protected works such as logos" 3. "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works"
The problem with #2 is that it doesn't give the context in which such an identification is required. Should a logo only be allowed when it's design is discused? Or when the company is discussed? Or on the article about the company? Or simply whenever the company is mentioned?
The problem with #3 is it gives no clarification as to how narrow the limits should be. If I have an article about a film (a copyrighted contemporary work) and I upload 30 screenshots, I could argue each one "complements" the article, and who's to say that only using 30 of the ~200,000 frames of the film isn't within "narrow limits".
Ed ----- en:ed_g2s
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with #3 is it gives no clarification as to how narrow the limits should be. If I have an article about a film (a copyrighted contemporary work) and I upload 30 screenshots, I could argue each one "complements" the article, and who's to say that only using 30 of the ~200,000 frames of the film isn't within "narrow limits".
Or .... 10 minutes out of two hours? 100,000 times over again. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/viacomyoutube31307cmp.html)
Even if the board intended the resolution to be that open ended, keep in mind that this resolution sets the absolute limit of what will be tolerated on the Wikimedia servers.
It is not the case that what the resolution forbids is permitted.
We are all still charged with educating people and enforcing sane policies which uphold our core missions. This resolution is not a free pass on vigilance.
If the culture on a project is pushing us away from our core mission, the best solution is NOT to petition the board for a stricter base requirement (which will no doubt have unintended side effects), instead you should be making an effort to change the culture.
Many of our users are either completely uninformed or substantially confused by what "Free" means in the context of our projects (hopefully this is easier for Frwiki and the like). While this resolution will, no doubt, help raise awareness, each and every one of us also have a part to play both internally and externally.
3. "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" My main problem is with #3, which basically opens the door to use any image which is mildly relevant. I can't see any valid uses of this exception.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with #3 is it gives no clarification as to how narrow the limits should be. If I have an article about a film (a copyrighted contemporary work) and I upload 30 screenshots, I could argue each one "complements" the article, and who's to say that only using 30 of the ~200,000 frames of the film isn't within "narrow limits".
Or .... 10 minutes out of two hours? 100,000 times over again. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/viacomyoutube31307cmp.html)
Even if the board intended the resolution to be that open ended, keep in mind that this resolution sets the absolute limit of what will be tolerated on the Wikimedia servers.
It is not the case that what the resolution forbids is permitted.
We are all still charged with educating people and enforcing sane policies which uphold our core missions. This resolution is not a free pass on vigilance.
If the culture on a project is pushing us away from our core mission, the best solution is NOT to petition the board for a stricter base requirement (which will no doubt have unintended side effects), instead you should be making an effort to change the culture.
Many of our users are either completely uninformed or substantially confused by what "Free" means in the context of our projects (hopefully this is easier for Frwiki and the like). While this resolution will, no doubt, help raise awareness, each and every one of us also have a part to play both internally and externally.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
- "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted
contemporary works" My main problem is with #3, which basically opens the door to use any image which is mildly relevant. I can't see any valid uses of this exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_and_Snowy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII
geni wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
- "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted
contemporary works" My main problem is with #3, which basically opens the door to use any image which is mildly relevant. I can't see any valid uses of this exception.
I would put that under "identifying protected works" as they are the subject of the article
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
What about the copyrighted text which is used?
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
What about the copyrighted text which is used?
So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end and questionable fair use begin?
Ec
On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
What about the copyrighted text which is used?
So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end and questionable fair use begin?
Huh? What does this have to do with fair use?
I have no idea what the term "questionable fair use" means.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
What about the copyrighted text which is used?
So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end and questionable fair use begin?
Huh? What does this have to do with fair use?
I have no idea what the term "questionable fair use" means.
To clarify: By ordinary fair use I mean all those quotations that few of us ever worry about. They are why such a law exists in the first place. "Questionable fair use" refers to all those claims founded on the contributors convenience without any analysis resembling the legal conditions for fair use. Perhaps an analysis could support the fair use claim, but we don't know that unless it's done.
Ec
On 29/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders wrote:
Only the images on that page which identify a specific part of the game being discussed should be sued, as such they would also fall under "identifying protected works".
What about the copyrighted text which is used?
So where does fair use, in the most normal application of the term, end and questionable fair use begin?
Huh? What does this have to do with fair use?
I have no idea what the term "questionable fair use" means.
To clarify: By ordinary fair use I mean all those quotations that few of us ever worry about. They are why such a law exists in the first place. "Questionable fair use" refers to all those claims founded on the contributors convenience without any analysis resembling the legal conditions for fair use. Perhaps an analysis could support the fair use claim, but we don't know that unless it's done.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I blame Gmail's interface and not my own clumsiness.
- d.
Yet we both know there are a substantial number of users (maybe even a majority) who appreciate our core principles, but choose to either disagree with them, or interpret them as liberally as possible.
As long as these people stay vocal, and our policies have these syntactic loopholes, our preaching is going to have little effect.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with #3 is it gives no clarification as to how narrow the limits should be. If I have an article about a film (a copyrighted contemporary work) and I upload 30 screenshots, I could argue each one "complements" the article, and who's to say that only using 30 of the ~200,000 frames of the film isn't within "narrow limits".
Or .... 10 minutes out of two hours? 100,000 times over again. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/viacomyoutube31307cmp.html)
Even if the board intended the resolution to be that open ended, keep in mind that this resolution sets the absolute limit of what will be tolerated on the Wikimedia servers.
It is not the case that what the resolution forbids is permitted.
We are all still charged with educating people and enforcing sane policies which uphold our core missions. This resolution is not a free pass on vigilance.
If the culture on a project is pushing us away from our core mission, the best solution is NOT to petition the board for a stricter base requirement (which will no doubt have unintended side effects), instead you should be making an effort to change the culture.
Many of our users are either completely uninformed or substantially confused by what "Free" means in the context of our projects (hopefully this is easier for Frwiki and the like). While this resolution will, no doubt, help raise awareness, each and every one of us also have a part to play both internally and externally.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ed Sanders wrote:
Yet we both know there are a substantial number of users (maybe even a majority) who appreciate our core principles, but choose to either disagree with them, or interpret them as liberally as possible.
These are hardly the same thing. Those that disagree are judged by how they deal with that disagreement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a very liberal interpretation of the rules. I have complaints about those who would interpret rules as strictly as possible.
As long as these people stay vocal, and our policies have these syntactic loopholes, our preaching is going to have little effect.
Let's hope they remain vocal. If you don't want syntactic loopholes the solution is not to write them in. We can also do without the preachers.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org