On 3/27/07, Ed Sanders <ejsanders(a)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.