The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy, available now at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message posted earlier at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer across all projects.
A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please add your own questions and suggest answers.
Please pass this information on to your project communities!
Cheers, Kat Walsh
Kat Walsh wrote:
The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy, available now at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message posted earlier at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer across all projects.
A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please add your own questions and suggest answers.
Please pass this information on to your project communities!
Cheers, Kat Walsh
I guess I need another hard drive on my computer for the responses :)
--Robert Horning
I'm so happy to see the word "educational" survived. :D
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 27/03/07, Kat Walsh kat@wikimedia.org wrote:
The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy, available now at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message posted earlier at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer across all projects.
A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please add your own questions and suggest answers.
Please pass this information on to your project communities!
Cheers, Kat Walsh
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Unfortunate, I can not discover any procedure how an EDP should be written. The resolution doesnt state any procedure of approving by the Foundation, as I beleive it was in the proposal. The backside of this is that it is very well possible that projects will develop EDP's that are conflicting with law, as many projects do not have sufficient lawyer capacity (such as nlwiki), especially on US law of course, but also on local law(s), to determine whether an EDP is conflicting or not. Further there is no demand that the foundation can check whether the EDP is as it was meant to. These are points I brought up earlier, and I am sad that they were left out completely now. I hope very much that some procedure will be developed anyway to have EDP's approved by the WMF.
Further I understand from the examples that a project might have multiple EDP's? (w:en:WP:FU is mentionned as one example, I guess a project could have more EDP then just FU?)
Lodewijk
2007/3/27, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com:
I'm so happy to see the word "educational" survived. :D
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 27/03/07, Kat Walsh kat@wikimedia.org wrote:
The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy, available now at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
This policy is intended to reflect the principles in the message posted earlier at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html and to make the guidelines for acceptable media licenses clearer across all projects.
A beginning draft of an FAQ page is on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_policy_FAQ_draft -- please add your own questions and suggest answers.
Please pass this information on to your project communities!
Cheers, Kat Walsh
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/27/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunate, I can not discover any procedure how an EDP should be written. The resolution doesnt state any procedure of approving by the Foundation, as I beleive it was in the proposal. The backside of this is that it is very well possible that projects will develop EDP's that are conflicting with law, as many projects do not have sufficient lawyer capacity (such as nlwiki), especially on US law of course, but also on local law(s), to determine whether an EDP is conflicting or not. Further there is no demand that the foundation can check whether the EDP is as it was meant to. These are points I brought up earlier, and I am sad that they were left out completely now. I hope very much that some procedure will be developed anyway to have EDP's approved by the WMF.
See point 6 in the resolution: "The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it." Though if a project can develop one on their own with minimal assistance, that's even better!
As for "no demand that the foundation can check whether the EDP is as it was meant to", I'm not sure what you mean. As for the difficulty of checking, we can always have something translated. As for whether we have the authority to, I don't think it needs to be said -- if a policy exists it means that we can change things that do not conform to it, same as any other policy. There is no formal approval process in place, no, but all are subject to review.
Further I understand from the examples that a project might have multiple EDP's? (w:en:WP:FU is mentionned as one example, I guess a project could have more EDP then just FU?)
Even if for some reason they are split across multiple pages, it's still one policy on what can be included.
-Kat
On 3/27/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunate, I can not discover any procedure how an EDP should be written. The resolution doesnt state any procedure of approving by the Foundation
Intentionally so. It would not be very scalable to have to approve every single EDP that is ever developed anywhere. Rather, we need to rely on volunteers from those communities and their periphery to inform us. I believe we must assume good faith here; if a project begins developing an EDP, it implies at least that they are thinking about the issue.
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects. I don't know if this was the intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a year now, and it has been used as a guideline. Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.
If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come out and said it simply: "All fair use is banned." I know that if this tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from many users like has never been seen before. But because this is a smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.
-- Robert Horning
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote: [snip]
Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a year now, and it has been used as a guideline
Can you explain for us why Wikibooks needs fair use? I'm not sure I see as much of as a use case as I do for Wikipedia. Can you provide some pointers?
At most it would seem to me that it would be something that should only be permitted by exception on a book by book basis based on the subject matter of the book.
The prospects of printing wikibooks is probably much greater, to the complications and harm from using non-free images is also probably greater. This should cause us to consider more carefully.
In any case, the first place to take a dispute about your EDP is your community, and not the foundation list. Since you're here already, educating us about the need for non-free images in Wikibooks makes sense to me.
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects. I don't know if this was the intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a year now, and it has been used as a guideline. Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.
If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come out and said it simply: "All fair use is banned." I know that if this tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from many users like has never been seen before. But because this is a smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.
-- Robert Horning
No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more formally.
The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
-Kat
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects.
-- Robert Horning
No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more formally.
The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
-Kat
There are several Wikibooks users who indeed want to keep fair use, and I believe this should be something that can be resolved through the normal policy building process that already exists within the Wikibooks community. The problem I see here is that radical solutions are being suggested on the authority of this new policy, and I want reassurances (like you have done here) that this is not intended to be a massive change of existing polices and content. Certainly not giving license to eliminate thousands of images (as do exist on Wikibooks) that are currently available only under fair-use terms, and have been selected for deletion by only a small handful of individuals acting on the authority of this policy that has been put forward by the WMF.
I agree that if we as a community want to move toward eliminating fair use, that we can come and decide that for ourselves and move in that direction. I am of the philosophical camp that some fair use ought to be permitted and that there are legitimate reasons for including it in our projects, but such fair use ought to be significantly restricted and encompass what is legally permissible even in countries that don't have fair-use legislation or comparable legal concepts.
I do agree with the general philosophy that more free images ought to be sought after, and that Wikimedia project contributors ought to find illustrations either in the public domain, available under free content licenses, or be able to generate those illustrations themselves when possible. I don't think this is always possible, and that we can find some reasonable exceptions that most people can live with that don't compromise the basic values of trying to create content that meets the basic philosophical principles of the GFDL and other free content builders.
--Robert Horning
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made curious :) ) Thanks.
Lodewijk
2007/3/28, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net:
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects.
-- Robert Horning
No, it's not a call to ban all fair use. But it *is* certainly a call to minimize it as much as possible and to treat it as inferior to free content -- and an individual project is more than welcome to decide that it does not want to use fair use at all. If Wikibooks does not need it then by all means it should remove it; most of the Wikibooks I have seen don't need non-free media as illustration, but perhaps there are others that do. (And looking back now Greg has posted -- going by the subject matter of the book is an interesting idea.)
Actually I find that people have been reading all sorts of things into the resolution -- I have been throwing up my hands in frustration at some corners of en.wikipedia proclaiming that because fair use was not banned entirely it must mean we wanted more of it. The policy should not actually be much of a change of anything, just set out a bit more formally.
The basic idea is that this is what we have adopted as the definition of free content; projects should treat everything else as very much inferior to it, and use things outside that definition only where it is not reasonably possible to avoid it.
-Kat
There are several Wikibooks users who indeed want to keep fair use, and I believe this should be something that can be resolved through the normal policy building process that already exists within the Wikibooks community. The problem I see here is that radical solutions are being suggested on the authority of this new policy, and I want reassurances (like you have done here) that this is not intended to be a massive change of existing polices and content. Certainly not giving license to eliminate thousands of images (as do exist on Wikibooks) that are currently available only under fair-use terms, and have been selected for deletion by only a small handful of individuals acting on the authority of this policy that has been put forward by the WMF.
I agree that if we as a community want to move toward eliminating fair use, that we can come and decide that for ourselves and move in that direction. I am of the philosophical camp that some fair use ought to be permitted and that there are legitimate reasons for including it in our projects, but such fair use ought to be significantly restricted and encompass what is legally permissible even in countries that don't have fair-use legislation or comparable legal concepts.
I do agree with the general philosophy that more free images ought to be sought after, and that Wikimedia project contributors ought to find illustrations either in the public domain, available under free content licenses, or be able to generate those illustrations themselves when possible. I don't think this is always possible, and that we can find some reasonable exceptions that most people can live with that don't compromise the basic values of trying to create content that meets the basic philosophical principles of the GFDL and other free content builders.
--Robert Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 28/03/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made curious :) ) Thanks.
Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made curious :) ) Thanks.
Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?
There are PD logos and adverts around.
geni wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made curious :) ) Thanks.
Use of logos and example adverts in a book about advertising?
There are PD logos and adverts around.
For everything that you want to talk about? If you are going to use an example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo. But even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content license. The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts. Of course such a fair use application would have to be in context.
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
For everything that you want to talk about? If you are going to use an example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo. But even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content license. The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts. Of course such a fair use application would have to be in context.
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
The bass logo is PD
Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
For everything that you want to talk about? If you are going to use an example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo. But even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content license. The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts. Of course such a fair use application would have to be in context.
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
The bass logo is PD
Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
I don't find it hard imagining a justifiable context in which a big corporate logo needs to be used in a book about logo design, advertising, a history of corporate America, &c.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 28/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
For everything that you want to talk about? If you are going to use an example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo. But even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content license. The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts. Of course such a fair use application would have to be in context.
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
The bass logo is PD
Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
I don't find it hard imagining a justifiable context in which a big corporate logo needs to be used in a book about logo design, advertising, a history of corporate America, &c.
How about a book on the history of the Ford Motor Company? The Debian logo has no use in that situation, but it would very much be reasonable to use the official Ford logo. And that is done in the commercial publishing world without explicit permission of the organization who "owns" the logo. That is fair-use.
On 3/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
even the WMF logo is not public domain
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
Wikimedia also has a free logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is public domain.
Angela
On 28/03/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
even the WMF logo is not public domain
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
Wikimedia also has a free logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is public domain.
Is this logo proposed or is it in place? en.Wikipedia doesn't have an article about "community logo"s. I can only assume it is an attempt to bridge the divide between those who believe everything should be free and those who see free logos as unrealistic and practically harmful?
Most of the uses for that logo on Commons is as the logo for Planet Wikimedia...
Angela wrote:
On 3/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
Wikimedia also has a free logo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg is public domain.
Angela
Keep in mind that this particular logo is not the WMF logo, and it was explicitly designed for use when the community needed to use a logo that was to be used in places where the main WMF logo could not be used because it would even violate fair use principles. There are very legitimate fair use situations where the WMF can be used without explicit permission of the WMF. Just as logos of other organizations can also be used under the terms of fair use. And I'm not talking within just Wikimedia projects either.
On 3/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
For everything that you want to talk about? If you are going to use an example of logos, sure, you can find *an example* of a PD logo. But even the WMF logo is not public domain.... it isn't even a free content license. The only way you can use the WMF logo in a Wikimedia project (in an article or book module) is under fair use concepts. Of course such a fair use application would have to be in context.
There is however the free Debian logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo.svg
The bass logo is PD
Fore adverts there is various US gov stuff and we can create images ourselves.
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I gotta point that Debian logo may not be free, as the freedom of use is restricted "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it refers to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.." So you can't use it for any purpose, only for those purposes refering to the Debian project.
Of course, the culprit here is the template, as the logo page says Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.
So you may or may not use it to refer to debian, whereas the tempalte says you can use it PRIVEDED THAT you refer to the debian project (otherwise you couldn't)
I tried fixing it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Debian-logo-notext.svg but It got unnecessarily awkard (and probably still wrong)
effe iets anders wrote:
Although a few people asked, you didnt give examples of when a Wikibooks should *need* to use Fair Use. Please note that a rationale is obliged. Could you give a few examples of images where there is absolutely no possibility that there will come no free substitute of it? (As you brought it yourself on this list... now i have been made curious :) ) Thanks.
Lodewijk
OK, here is a very clear cut example:
A Wikibook about stamp collecting, where you give clear examples of specific postage stamps and talk about their historical significance and value as a collector. The one and only way you can obtain images about the stamps is to use them under fair use principles, as they are copyrighted images. And such commercial publications, including printed books about stamps, have been made using this sort of fair use as justification for their use.
There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover images of those books. Flags can also be protected by things like crown copyright, and in most cases can only be used under fair use principles.
There are also several Wikibooks that are "how to use..." books that go into specifics about learning to use several software applications, including commercial products like Microsoft Office. Screenshots of these programs are not permitted on Commons, and are integral to explaining how to use the features of this software that simply can't be done with words alone.
I could go on here with several other examples, but this is just an initial start. I think there are very legitimate applications of fair use within Wikibooks and eliminating fair use will certainly hurt the project... but that is something I would argue within the realm of trying to determine policy on Wikibooks.
Again, I'm just saying that this is a call to eliminate fair use based on this policy from the WMF, and that doesn't seem to be justified or reasonable.
-- Robert Horning
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote: [snip]
There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover images of those books.
[snip]
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be an epic conversation by itself...
Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate non-free decorations?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote: [snip]
There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover images of those books.
[snip]
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be an epic conversation by itself...
Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate non-free decorations?
No. I don't mean to go that far, and the number of exceptions can be kept very minimal. Flags of various political jurisdictions are an exceptional and very narrowly focused type of image (assuming that you rendered the image of the flag yourself and are not talking about other copyright complications) and there are certainly restrictions as to when they can be used and how. There certainly are reasons why these images may not be on Commons and require exceptions on an individual project.
Again, if you are talking about if this should be allowed within the Wikibook community, that is something I can debate there. I am giving the kinds of images that have been suggested as needing fair use, and what is currently permitted within Wikibooks... or at least what has been used by Wikibooks content developers.
As far as jepordizing the free content status of the Wikibook, how is that again? Fair use is fair use. If you can use some content under fair use principles, then downstream users can also use that fair use content under the same principles. Richard Stallman said as much on this very mailing list (though admittedly a few years ago). You can have fair use content mixed with GFDL'd content.... but it must be used in context and other fair use restrictions. The main issue is not jepordizing GFDL'd content but making situations where people in one country can't use that same content somewhere else. However, there is content (like a swastika or a burning of the Koran) that simply would cause problems no matter where you go or what you do. Or pictures of public nudity.
This is not a simple cut and dried argument here, and has been pointed out, even banning fair use entirely does not kill all of the problems with trying to decide if an image is legal to use or not. Obviously with flags it is very close to that border as to if copyright even applies on self-generated works.
-- Robert Horning
Hallo,
There is one very simple argument, nobody likes to hear but it is valid:
In principle all the content on whatever project must have the possibility to be reproduced, used (non-commercially but also commercially) and to be altered/changed. Free content licensed with GFDL or CC-BY-SA X.X do fit in this picture.
The people reusing the content on wikimedia-site _can_ use Fair Use pictures under the same conditions as certain wikimedia-projects do, but they _cannot_ change the (copyrighted) fair-use pictures provided in the same document for example, as they could with all texts and with pictures with accepted licenses. (valid for countries which allow fair use)
Therefore fair use pictures do not fully comply with the conditions under which the text is offered. It should be clear for the content-reusers that fair-use pictures have to be handled differently as the text. Fair Use pictures are not free content.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/3/29, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote: [snip]
There are also several Wikibooks that discuss learning foreign languages, and I think it is very reasonable to use flags of the countries where those languages are spoken as elements in the cover images of those books.
[snip]
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, without getting into the nitty-gritty of flag image licensing, or how someone could match flags to languages in an NPOV manner, either of which could be an epic conversation by itself...
Are you saying that you think it is acceptable to compromise the wholly free content status of a wikibook in order to incorporate non-free decorations?
No. I don't mean to go that far, and the number of exceptions can be kept very minimal. Flags of various political jurisdictions are an exceptional and very narrowly focused type of image (assuming that you rendered the image of the flag yourself and are not talking about other copyright complications) and there are certainly restrictions as to when they can be used and how. There certainly are reasons why these images may not be on Commons and require exceptions on an individual project.
Again, if you are talking about if this should be allowed within the Wikibook community, that is something I can debate there. I am giving the kinds of images that have been suggested as needing fair use, and what is currently permitted within Wikibooks... or at least what has been used by Wikibooks content developers.
As far as jepordizing the free content status of the Wikibook, how is that again? Fair use is fair use. If you can use some content under fair use principles, then downstream users can also use that fair use content under the same principles. Richard Stallman said as much on this very mailing list (though admittedly a few years ago). You can have fair use content mixed with GFDL'd content.... but it must be used in context and other fair use restrictions. The main issue is not jepordizing GFDL'd content but making situations where people in one country can't use that same content somewhere else. However, there is content (like a swastika or a burning of the Koran) that simply would cause problems no matter where you go or what you do. Or pictures of public nudity.
This is not a simple cut and dried argument here, and has been pointed out, even banning fair use entirely does not kill all of the problems with trying to decide if an image is legal to use or not. Obviously with flags it is very close to that border as to if copyright even applies on self-generated works.
-- Robert Horning
Peter van Londen wrote:
Hallo,
There is one very simple argument, nobody likes to hear but it is valid:
In principle all the content on whatever project must have the possibility to be reproduced, used (non-commercially but also commercially) and to be altered/changed. Free content licensed with GFDL or CC-BY-SA X.X do fit in this picture.
The people reusing the content on wikimedia-site _can_ use Fair Use pictures under the same conditions as certain wikimedia-projects do, but they _cannot_ change the (copyrighted) fair-use pictures provided in the same document for example, as they could with all texts and with pictures with accepted licenses. (valid for countries which allow fair use)
Therefore fair use pictures do not fully comply with the conditions under which the text is offered. It should be clear for the content-reusers that fair-use pictures have to be handled differently as the text. Fair Use pictures are not free content.
Kind regards Londenp
There are disclaimers on Wikibooks (and Wikipedia) that say just as much, that fair use content must be dealt with on a different basis. Although I would also have to add that you also have to treat images under other licenses like the Creative Commons licenses under separate terms than the main text of the article/book as well. Fair use isn't unique here either for this sort of concern about different conditions for reuse. And nobody is calling for an elimination of CC licenses on Commons either. Or images released under the terms of the GPL.
A minor issue that does exist on Wikimedia projects is that the image license only appears if you click on the image itself and go the the "main" image page instead of seeing a reference to the content license inside of the article. Perhaps it would be useful on the copyright pages that mention suggested steps to meet the legal requirements of the GFDL, that it would also be recommended that you review the copyright licenses of each image that you intend to redistribute, and that you maintain those same license terms for any of those images that you copy. I'm fairly certainly that many of the Wikipedia mirrors don't take that extra step, but then again many mirrors don't include the images at all either.
I'm curious how the static Wikipedia on DVD does this in terms of noting the image copyright licenses. Thinking aloud about how "printed" Wikibooks are also put together, I'm curious about what sort of bibliographic standard could be put together that would list the license credits of all images used in a book, and how to automatically generate that sort of appendix. For now, I can only think of a manual method of generating a list of "credits" that would identify under what licenses each images has been used. Of course "opaque" distributions of GFDL'd content require some sort of electronic access to the original source material, which in this case would be the URL to Wikibooks and you could obtain the licensing information in a round-about manner. I don't think it is a legal requirement to disclose that multiple licenses have been used on image content, but it would represent scholarly honesty in doing so.
-- Robert Horning
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects.
No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not. The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use, but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is covered by it.
So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair use, content won't be removed.
I don't know if this was the intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
Each project can take its own decisions. But arguing in general is no good, can you provide specific examples of images you think they are needed, and that fair use is justified, so we can analyze the justification?
With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
It means each project has 1 year to develop its exemption policy, and check that images will be covered under it. There¡s plenty of time to work on it.
Wikibooks has had an unofficial policy about fair use for more than a year now, and it has been used as a guideline. Because of the earlier discussion about fair use that was started by Kat (before this policy was written), this same bureaucrat on Wikibooks also deleted and rewrote the fair use policy to simply say that fair use was banned, presuming authority on the part of the WMF.
Yes, the resolution says that now, an specific policy has to be developed. THat's the new thing. Notice that some projects have policy exemptions of the form "we dont' want exemptions" and that's right, as long as each project can decide its own
If this really is the intent of the WMF, I wish you would have just come out and said it simply: "All fair use is banned." I know that if this tactic were to be tried on Wikipedia that you would have an uproar from many users like has never been seen before. But because this is a smallish project with only a handful of users who set policy, it makes it easier for some users to wildly mis-interpret what has been said.
-- Robert Horning
The resolution is meant to provide a way to have fair use, not to ban it. However, it also states that things should be done right. Have an explicit policy, and have images matched to that policy.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects.
No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not. The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use, but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is covered by it.
So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair use, content won't be removed.
I'm arguing here that it is being used to advance the cause of those who desire all fair use eliminated, even if that isn't the intention, and the interpretations of this policy are beginning to have some wide ranging impact on individual projects.
I don't know if this was the intent, but on at least en.wikibooks, the most active bureaucrat there has demanded that all fair use content be eliminated from Wikibooks. And has used this policy to strength his own counter claim that we should never have allowed fair use onto that project in the first place.
Each project can take its own decisions. But arguing in general is no good, can you provide specific examples of images you think they are needed, and that fair use is justified, so we can analyze the justification?
This isn't just arguing about specific images about if the fair use is allowed or not. This is a call to completely eliminate all fair use on Wikibooks until the policy permitting it is established, and only allowing fair use after that policy has been accepted.... with a threat that such a policy would never be developed anyway. It is also a call to completely eliminate every single fair use image that currently exists on Wikibooks based completely upon this new policy from the WMF. I am arguing that such a radical change is not the intention and that we need to step back and come up with something a little more reasonable.
I guess I'm also saying that if this is the intention of the WMF to force such radical elmination of current fair-use images in those projects that havn't yet formalized an EDP, that some reasonable time ought to be granted to projects to decide the fate of these images. Giving us a deadline for deletion of images to be March 23rd of this year just doesn't seem to me as reasonable... or even to have established a policy by that date when we just found out about this foundation policy in the first place.
BTW, if you want to read what I think are reasonable images where fair use should be allowed, see http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Fair_use_policy&oldi...
The policy that I was trying to draft on Wikibook was to permit very specific categories of images, and all other fair use was to be eliminated. If you wanted an additional fair-use category of images on the project, the policy needed to be explictly ammended as a policy change. If you want me to show you a specific image to argue and debate over, I can, but that is not why I'm bringing this issue to the attention of those who read this mailing list. I should note that the alternative policy is to simply ban fair use altogether, not to expand and allow much more premissive fair use.
With statements like "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." seem to imply that unless you have already "approved" an EDP (whatever that means.... and the process of approval is certainly vague here) that all fair use can be retroactively deleted.
It means each project has 1 year to develop its exemption policy, and check that images will be covered under it. There¡s plenty of time to work on it.
I read it originally as March 23rd, 2007, and I'm pretty sure that is what was being interpreted elsewhere. That is a more reasonable deadline to review this concept and establish such policies. As one of the admins who will have to somehow implement this policy on a local level, this is a concern to me. I certainly hope that the arguments and discussions on writing this policy don't take more than a year to develop, but I've seen some policy discussions go on that long before. What will happen when this deadline is reached will be interesting.
With two competing policies on Wikibooks at the moment and strong defenders (and admins) advocating each policy, this may not be something so simple to resolve.... particularly when there doesn't seem to be too much middle ground here. And those advocating a ban on fair use have no incentive to give up their position as a delay until 2008 is sufficient to achieve their goals.
-- Robert Horing
On 3/29/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
The policy that I was trying to draft on Wikibook was to permit very specific categories of images, and all other fair use was to be eliminated.
This is essentially what the resolution is doing. The types that the resolution mentions are:
* media used to illustrate historically significant events [1] * identifying protected works such as logos * media used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works
So this clearly covers things like corporate logos in articles on the corporation, pictures of a painting in an article about the painting, and unique photos of historical events (where, of course, there are no free alternatives that would adequately convey the same information).
So you can see that the resolution really makes explicit allowance for all of the important uses of unfree media in defining what an EDP can cover.
-- [1] ie. a picture of a specific event in the past that by definition cannot be repeated.
Stephen Bain wrote:
This is essentially what the resolution is doing. The types that the resolution mentions are:
- media used to illustrate historically significant events [1]
- identifying protected works such as logos
- media used to complement (within narrow limits) articles about
copyrighted contemporary works
So this clearly covers things like corporate logos in articles on the corporation, pictures of a painting in an article about the painting, and unique photos of historical events (where, of course, there are no free alternatives that would adequately convey the same information).
So you can see that the resolution really makes explicit allowance for all of the important uses of unfree media in defining what an EDP can cover.
You can never really make allowance for all the uses. You need to allow for those that have not yet properly discussed, and which may arise in the futre..
Ec
On 3/28/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Robert Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As I feared would be the case, this new foundation policy has become a call to arms by deletionists to institute a massive removal of all fair use content on all Wikimedia projects.
No, only for content claimed to be fair use but which actually is not. The resolution explictly acknowledges that projects can host fair use, but only if they develop an specific policy and show that an image is covered by it.
So if it's claimed to be fair use, and it actually qualifies for fair use, content won't be removed.
That's an interesting claim by Pedro, since only a judge can make the determination whether content claimed to be fair use actually is or not.
On 3/26/07, Kat Walsh kat@wikimedia.org wrote:
The board has now passed its resolution on the media licensing policy, available now at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
"All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above."
"In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP."
Am I misreading something, or does this mean that the Wikimedia logos need to be removed from the Commons?
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org