In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate comments and suggestions.
This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
==Applicable definitions== ; Project : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia or Wikisource, and a language. ; Free License : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0. ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek
==Resolution==
Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a ''free license''," # All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition referenced above. # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users. # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries. # For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: #* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. # For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: #* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted. #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed to coordinate this process. #* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
==Applicable definitions==
; Free License
: a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
Should maybe indicate some examples of the current heavily-used licenses that follow these criteria, namely GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and (maybe) PD. Maybe there should be also be some examples of licenses which are sometimes considered 'free' but aren't, such as the Non-Commercial Creative Commons-licenses (CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA).
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
That term seems a little redundant to me, but it's not the end of the world. Otherwise this is all *very* encouraging!
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
Do the communities have to ask permission to implement an EDP in their project? Or is that only an advice?
Will the general council also advice on the part of EDP on local law, or only for the "US-part" ?
Does the EDP have to be fine with GFDL too?
Will the EDP be a temporary solution, or a definitive one?
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate comments and suggestions.
This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
==Applicable definitions== ; Project : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia or Wikisource, and a language. ; Free License : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0. ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project. Examples include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek
==Resolution==
Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a ''free license''," # All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition referenced above. # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users. # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries. # For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: #* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well. # For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: #* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted. #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed to coordinate this process. #* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content.
You realise this would risk inceaseing the amount of fair use stuff allowed on en? Since it allows the use of unfree material even when it would be possible to create free material.
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project.
Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
Thanks in advance Regards, Dami
On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
: a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project.
Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
Thanks in advance Regards, Dami
And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the influx of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save WMF-diskspace etc.
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:
On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
: a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project.
Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an
EDP
cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
Thanks in advance Regards, Dami
And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the influx of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Effeietsanders hit on all the major reasons a project might want or not want to move to Commons-only upoads. I do plan to write a guide on Commons called something like 'Turning off local uploads', with advice for projects about how to make this transition smoothly. But I haven't written it yet.
For people who think Commons is 'not being nice'... please write to me PRIVATELY and I will seriously do everything I can to solve problems you have had or are having, and improve relations between your project and Commons. I really consider that is very important for Commons and will take what you say seriously. I am always open on that front.
Anyway, here is the first step towards 'Commons-only' uploads, for those who are interested: point your upload link on the sidebar to a page [[Project:Upload]] instead of [[Special:Upload]]. Then on this page you can explain about source, licensing, copyright, direct people to Commons if they want.
All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend it.
Some projects who have done this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8... (I know there are more...)
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 21/02/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save WMF-diskspace etc.
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:
...
And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the influx of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend it.
I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.
Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that switching things to commons improves the situation.
On 21/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced BIG, significant drops in upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend it.
I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.
Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that switching things to commons improves the situation.
I am not convinced that that is what happens (although neither of us can prove either way). I think having the additional page, without the upload form, encourages people to actually read what it says, instead of skipping ahead to find the 'submit' button. Hopefully what happens is, some free images go to Commons, some copyvios don't get uploaded at all, some confused users get redirected to a Help desk, and overall uploads are halved.
Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any project, dare I say. (That's not a reason not to strive for copyvio-free projects, of course.)
cheers Brianna
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also: we will never have a handle on copyright violations. on any project, dare I say.
There are ways it could be done. Some of them are even legal.
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Some projects who have done this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8... (I know there are more...)
The German Wikipedia has also switched to Commons for most uploads.
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was easy to read it that way.
Jkelly
I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont need the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when there is nothing else available and it is really needed.
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu:
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was easy to read it that way.
Jkelly
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hallo
EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of. The resolution is supposed to clear things up, but in fact is now doing the opposite. NC and ND is not allowed, except if you have a EDP. You see what will happen? Whole communities will be tested once again. Fair use is NC and ND, but you can use it because of EDP.
I am sorry, but this is not a resolution I can back up.
Peter van Londen/Londenp
2007/2/20, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont need the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when there is nothing else available and it is really needed.
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu:
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace,
reduces
the incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media
is
a justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but
it
was easy to read it that way.
Jkelly
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 20/02/07, Peter van Londen londenp@gmail.com wrote:
EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
[...]
Fair use is NC and ND, but you can use it because of EDP.
Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand what the resolution is about.
- d.
Probably I don't understand.
However explain me if you can modify and use commercially copyrighted fair use pictures. Please explain to me like I am 6 years old, so I do understand.
Peter van Londen
2007/2/20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen londenp@gmail.com wrote:
EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
[...]
Fair use is NC and ND, but you can use it because of EDP.
Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand what the resolution is about.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
Lodewijk
2007/2/20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen londenp@gmail.com wrote:
EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
[...]
Fair use is NC and ND, but you can use it because of EDP.
Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand what the resolution is about.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/20/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use, whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it should be treated no differently than material that is all rights reserved under than policy.
-Kat
Hallo,
If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one: allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and non-derivative).
But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use images. That would be clarity.
I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members not reading this list, will use this.
The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures under the EDP (that is speculation though).
I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/21, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com:
On 2/20/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
put
the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
just
claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
dont
even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
on
as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use, whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it should be treated no differently than material that is all rights reserved under than policy.
-Kat
-- 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
Hoi It is irrelevant when the Dutch Wikipedia crowd votes both on the ESA images and on the Wikipedia only; they are explicitly prohibited by the draft resolution. The best it does is that images that are in these two categories will only be mandatory deleted in 2008 and not sooner.
Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is probably much easier to just use Commons.
When you post an unfree picture it does not matter at all how it is unfree; the license is in and of itself irrelevant. The saving grace for such material is that it will be tagged as "FAIR USE". With the license registered as well, it indicates under what conditions it is available otherwise. Consequently ND or NC material that is ALSO fair use will be replaced and deleted once alternative material is available. ND and NC material that is not fair use will be deleted in 2008.
A key thing you forget is that the legal council is part of the process of approving any ESA. The option is not open to allow for NC or ND works under a local ESA proposal. The legal council is bound to reject any such proposals. This is not democratic and intentionally so, this is a consequence of it being a WMF resolution.
When some people have opinions that are not shared by the majority of a community, with the majority opinion in line with the "Licensing Policy Resolution", they will find that they are entitled to their opinion. It will however not be the policy of that community.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
Hallo,
If it is not the intention: we should rewrite the EDP, because it leaves that much room for the possibility effeietsanders is telling. In fact the Dutch community will probably have to vote soon over 2 proposals: First one: allowing images for "Just on Wikipedia", second allow ESA images (which are according to the licence info from the ESA-website non-commercial and non-derivative).
But any solution which aims at allowing Fair Use on one hand and disallowing non-free licences on the other hand is, I think, not possible: our just outright say it: All the projects have to abide by the freedomdefined.orgdefinition, but the EN:WP, which may use Fair Use images. That would be clarity.
I know a large portion of the especially EN-community would not be able to cope with a removal of all Fair Use images and that the board likes to find a compromise between free licensed information and calmness in the biggest community. But this EDP will open up possibilities for the other communities to allow in fact non-free licensed pictures, and certainly community-members not reading this list, will use this.
The Dutch-language community is more and more influenced from people who have a different view about the ideals behind Wikimedia-projects as is described in freedomdefined.org and they will probably now allow pictures under the EDP (that is speculation though).
I hope that the draft can be changed, I have no problem with an exception for the EN:WP if this is good for that community.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/21, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com:
On 2/20/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just
put
the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they
just
claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they
dont
even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go
on
as long as there is no replacement uploaded.
That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use, whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be ND or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it should be treated no differently than material that is all rights reserved under than policy.
-Kat
2007/2/21, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
<snip>
Fair use has to comply with the US and the local law. Given that the Belgian law is a local law for the nl.wikipedia, good luck. It is probably much easier to just use Commons.
</snip>
Thats why i asked whether the foundation will advice on the local law part (as there are little or no lawyers on nl.wikipedia) and whether the foundation has to agree upon the EDP (as otherwise, the community might just push it through) I hope both will be answered with 'yes'.
Lodewijk
On 2/21/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Thats why i asked whether the foundation will advice on the local law part (as there are little or no lawyers on nl.wikipedia) and whether the foundation has to agree upon the EDP (as otherwise, the community might just push it through) I hope both will be answered with 'yes'.
Well, our GC is not an all-knowing godlike entity, so the most we can expect from him is to make sure that there's a lawyer responsible for each country, and to coordinate the overall process. (The WMF, I believe, will financially assist in paying for expertise where necessary.) As to approval, yes, though this cannot be much more than a "smell test". If the process was followed, that should be sufficient.
On 2/21/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, our GC is not an all-knowing godlike entity, so the most we can expect from him is to make sure that there's a lawyer responsible for each country, and to coordinate the overall process. (The WMF, I believe, will financially assist in paying for expertise where necessary.) As to approval, yes, though this cannot be much more than a "smell test". If the process was followed, that should be sufficient.
Hm, are we agreed on this? I don't think of approval being simply a "smell test" to see if process was followed... some communities already have a well-thought-out policy in line with overall goals (particularly the ones who have chosen not to allow any unfree content at all!) and it will be just "this looks OK", others need more direction and revision.
(I also don't think having the GC and a lawyer heavily involved is necessarily the course we are set on taking; probably any sane lawyer wouldn't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole.)
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
Argh.
-Kat
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for interpretations. By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might close the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about that), but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for commercial exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am not opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic detrimental implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it. The draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two exceptions: Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish Wikinews. Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for interpretations. By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might close the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about that), but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for commercial exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am not opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic detrimental implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it. The draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two exceptions: Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish Wikinews. Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant.
Well, not if it's a free license. (yeah, I know... ;-))
The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
What local laws? When? How?
Delphine (confused)
Hoi, When as part of an EDP the option of "Fair use" is kept open, the specifics of this have to comply with the US law and with the laws that are prevalent for the country/countries that use the language. This means for instance that for French, not only the French but also the Belgian law has to be considered for the EDP. Thanks, GerardM
Delphine Ménard schreef:
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant.
Well, not if it's a free license. (yeah, I know... ;-))
The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
What local laws? When? How?
Delphine (confused)
2007/2/22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
You are probably right for republishing, but I don't believe that this is true for making derivative works of Wikipedia. The GFDL-licence of wikipedia, allows to change the material. Well with a fair use image, when it is copyrighted (and not free-licensed), you would not be able to change the material, so therefore the fair use image is not compatible to the GFDL of Wikimedia-projects. Geniice told me on IRC, if I understand correctly, that you might change a copyrighted image (fair use or not) if it is a very small part of the original, like for a parody (under USA-law). But album covers are not part of this.
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be
permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
So in fact you wouldn't need an EDP at all in my opinion.
Thanks,
GerardM
Thanks as well Londenp
Geniice told me on IRC, if I understand correctly, that you might change a copyrighted image (fair use or not) if it is a very small part of the original, like for a parody (under USA-law). But album covers are not part of this.
Not quite. Those were the first examples I could come up with. It is not say there are not others but since en.wikipedia does not allow modification of fair use images it isn't a subject I worry about very much.
Gerad,
"fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org. There seems to be na rationale to allow fair use except that a large part of the english community objects.
You keep repeating that NC and ND will be tolerated as "fair use", but so far I've read no rationale for regarding them as such. They are simply two totally different concepts.
kind regards, teun
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for interpretations. By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might
close
the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about
that),
but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for commercial exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am not opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic detrimental implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it. The draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two
exceptions:
Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish
Wikinews.
Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi. You got it completely backwards. Content tagged as NC and ND will on its own not be permitted. It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft resolution. When a project has an EDP, fair use may be permitted. This is indeed explicitly not in compliance with the notions of the freedomdefined.org. Fair use material may have a license, any license, including NC and ND. This material will be permitted on the basis of the EDP and on the basis of it being considered Fair use. I have never ever said that an EDP will allow for all NC or ND.
What I have said, but not in this thread, that there is no provision for the inclusion of logos of organisations. It is extremely useful to have logos in our encyclopaedia. The notion that these logos have to be available under a license that will allow people to make derivatives is moronic. In my opinion it is being over-zealous in how we provide a Free resource. The first criteria for our projects is providing information. This is forgotten in the argument. Now this is just one reason why it is good to have an EDP; this way a project can have logos of organisations on its articles and Commons can be what it is; only a resource of digital material available under a Free license.
Thanks GerardM
teun spaans schreef:
Gerad,
"fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org. There seems to be na rationale to allow fair use except that a large part of the english community objects.
You keep repeating that NC and ND will be tolerated as "fair use", but so far I've read no rationale for regarding them as such. They are simply two totally different concepts.
kind regards, teun
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for interpretations. By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might
close
the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about
that),
but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for commercial exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am not opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic detrimental implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it. The draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two
exceptions:
Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish
Wikinews.
Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too far about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that could possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
On 2/23/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. You got it completely backwards.
NO. Fair use says others may use what we write. yes. Fair use says that in the US and Canada (and perhaps a bunch of UK-related countries) images may be used in a certain context, but this is often haphazard, as the context is always a matter of debate. It can not be freely used outside this domain. The fair use excemption seems to be only provided because of the huge oppostion on the english wiki. But the allowance of fair use on the wikis should not be based on US laws, but on international treaties, and its adherence to freedomdefined.org. The fact that US laws allow it, is no reason for us to allow it as well.
Content tagged as NC and ND will on its
own not be permitted.
It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft
resolution.
The draft says: ''
By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted''
So if a community acccepts NC or ND as an EDP, it will not be deleted. So your statement is invalid.
When a project has an EDP, fair use may be permitted. This
is indeed explicitly not in compliance with the notions of the freedomdefined.org. Fair use material may have a license, any license, including NC and ND. This material will be permitted on the basis of the EDP and on the basis of it being considered Fair use. I have never ever said that an EDP will allow for all NC or ND.
You have not said that, but the draft does not exclude it.
What I have said, but not in this thread, that there is no provision for
the inclusion of logos of organisations. It is extremely useful to have logos in our encyclopaedia. The notion that these logos have to be available under a license that will allow people to make derivatives is moronic. In my opinion it is being over-zealous in how we provide a Free resource. The first criteria for our projects is providing information. This is forgotten in the argument. Now this is just one reason why it is good to have an EDP; this way a project can have logos of organisations on its articles and Commons can be what it is; only a resource of digital material available under a Free license.
Logos are a prime example of images which are not free and ND. So you
contradict yourself.
Logos can probably be used under fair use as far as copyright goes, but often have other restrictions as well. Logos doe not carry any information accept recognition. They do not server the purpose of an encyclopedia very much, though they might serve a book about logos.
If you allow logos, you might as well grant the whole world of press photos, which are generally intended to be used freely but ND.
kind regards, teun
Thanks
GerardMteun spaans schreef:
Gerad,
"fair use" does not comply with the freedom as in freedomdefined.org.
There
seems to be na rationale to allow fair use except that a large part of
the
english community objects.
You keep repeating that NC and ND will be tolerated as "fair use", but
so
far I've read no rationale for regarding them as such. They are simply
two
totally different concepts.
kind regards, teun
On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When material is used with a "Fair Use" argumentation, the license that this material would otherwise be available under is irrelevant. The material could even have a commercial license. The claim of Fair Use trumps any license restriction. When someone wants to re-publish Wikipedia, the same claim of Fair Use should apply. This is why it has to conform to the laws of the US and the local law(s).
It is therefore really simple. On its own ND and NC will not be permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.
Thanks, GerardM
Peter van Londen schreef:
I politely disagree,
This will be the case when you leave too much room for
interpretations.
By using an EDP approach, you leave all possibilities open for non-conforming material to the freedomdefined definition. You might
close
the gap of too far off EDP's with a control by anyone, any committee (although there seems to be a disagreement between Kat and Eric about
that),
but allowing images within an EDP conflicting with the freedomdefined definition, like Fair Use, opens up in principle all possibilities for communities to do whatever they want, conflicting with the original definition.
I asked you to explain me how you can use fair use images for
commercial
exploitation and for derivative works: you could not David. But I am
not
opposed to using Fair Use, as long as there are no juristic
detrimental
implications for the Wikimedia projects, but then be clear about it.
The
draft can be adjusted, so that interpretations can be minimized.
Forget about an EDP: use the freedomdefined definition, with two
exceptions:
Fair use images for the EN:WP and another exception for the Polish
Wikinews.
Any other exception should have to be approved by the board/GC.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/2/22, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh kwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am afraid of misconceptions and misinterpretations spreading too
far
about what is to be allowed and what isn't, and I've been hearing misinterpretations both on the too-inclusive and too-exclusive
side...
I fear it's a case where either side will seize on anything that
could
possibly support their obviously correct view rather than the obviously misguided opposing view.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/23/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Content tagged as NC and ND will on its
own not be permitted.
It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft
resolution.
The draft says: ''
By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted''
So if a community acccepts NC or ND as an EDP, it will not be deleted. So your statement is invalid.
His statement is actually valid; if the wording suggests otherwise it will be fixed!
-Kat
Thank you. I will be glad if this is fixed.
On 2/23/07, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Content tagged as NC and ND will on its
own not be permitted.
It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft
resolution.
The draft says: ''
By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted''
So if a community acccepts NC or ND as an EDP, it will not be deleted. So your statement is invalid.
His statement is actually valid; if the wording suggests otherwise it will be fixed!
-Kat
-- 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
On 2/20/07, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
I agree with this... yikes, definitely needs revision if that's what it's implying.
Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific. en:'s articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the gallery tag. Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was easy to read it that way.
Also a good point.
-Kat
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 2/20/07, jkelly wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s experience is typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd suggest that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
I agree with this... yikes, definitely needs revision if that's what it's implying.
Hi - It seems there is no consensus for this position:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#promophotos_in_other_la...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Why_we_delete_replaceab...
- luke
Hoi, If you read carefully you will have noticed that there is no need for a consensus in all the projects. First of all, where the board makes a ruling that some things are not acceptable they are not acceptable. No consensus needed. When some projects decide to allow for Fair Use and others not, this will be acceptable provided the respective laws are abided by.
So, nothing new here.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/5/07, luke brandt shojokid@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 2/20/07, jkelly wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Erik Moeller:
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
I suggest that this needs some additional discussion. If en:'s
experience is
typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace,
reduces the
incentive to create or find free content considerably. Further, I'd
suggest
that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media
is a
justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
I agree with this... yikes, definitely needs revision if that's what it's implying.
Hi - It seems there is no consensus for this position:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#promophotos_in_other_la...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Why_we_delete_replaceab...
- luke
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/5/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you read carefully you will have noticed that there is no need for a consensus in all the projects. First of all, where the board makes a ruling that some things are not acceptable they are not acceptable.
Indeed. I don't expect that, in the current, highly diverse community of Wikimedia projects, there would _ever_ be consensus for either a strong position on freedom, or a strong position on inclusiveness. I would expect that support for freedom is higher among regular contributors. Importantly, it represents a core value that has been part of this project since the very beginning, even before Wikipedia itself was launched. It is useful to review the first public announcement on the Nupedia project, made in March 2000:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.skating.ice.recreational/browse_thr...
"What does it mean to say the encyclopedia is "open content"? This means that anyone can use content taken from Nupedia articles for all purposes, both for-profit or non-profit ..."
(I also always find it interesting that this mission statement was already ambitious enough to suggest that Nupedia should "become the largest general encyclopedia in the history of humankind.")
Part of the job of the Board is to strengthen and build the support for freedom in our community, but that doesn't mean that we would ever abandon this principle -- even if a majority of contributors opposed it. It is a foundation value (with both a lower and upper case F).
On 21/02/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate comments and suggestions.
This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
==Applicable definitions== ; Project : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia or Wikisource, and a language.
This excludes Meta, Species, wwwwikisource, MediaWiki, Foundation wikis which don't have language versions. And did you notice you used the word "project" in the definition of the word "project"? We have a major ambiguity problem here. :) Also excludes Commons but that seems covered below.
# In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
Define 'machine readable format'. (Or maybe there is a definition I don't know?)
# Such EDPs must be minimal.
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who dislike fair use too.
#* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed to coordinate this process.
This is great. Put this in bigger font and re-emphasise to the projects who are worried.
cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who dislike fair use too.
I think the recent example of the English Wikipedia using a "No free image" template is exactly the direction we should go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
(Incidentally, a very similar system is used by the IMDB, except of course they do not care if their images are freely licensed.)
I am willing to support a licensing policy that is more strict than the current draft, i.e., which explicitly rules out the use of EDPs for purposes such as portrait photos, and limits them essentially to: - media about significant historical events - "identifying media" such as logos, jingles, etc. - excerpts of contemporary copyrighted works (low quality versions of comic book characters, album covers, music samples, screenshots etc.)
I think we need to also have a vague "reasonable expectation" clause in the resolution that clarifies that, if we can reasonably _expect_ that a free work will be made available, then a non-free one shouldn't be used. This allows us to, over time, shift out more of the above (especially the historical stuff, which I think we can definitely get under free licenses in the not too distant future).
On the other hand, as long as copyrighted works are dominant in the information society, EDPs are the main method by which we can illustrate and excerpt contemporary cultural works. I do think this is a significant part of the mission of the WMF, and that we should make use of the few exemptions to copyright law that there are in order to do it.
Characters from contemporary films or cartoons, for example, are not going to become "free content" anytime soon. Even if we could "liberate" them, this would hardly be our first priority. Those that scoff at Pokemon or Star Wars screenshots should acknowledge that, if we were to ban any such material from being illustrated, it would also exclude the great masters of film, music and painting from most of the 20th century. We should not even try to discriminate here between that which is "worthy" and that which is not; if the work is notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia, it is notable enough to be illustrated.
Moreover, experience has shown that trying to ban non-free content completely tends to only lead to workarounds which are even worse (e.g. people photographing 3D toys of a cartoon character, carefully cropping out all the background, and proudly proclaiming that they now have created a "free work"; logos being flatly claimed to not be "copyrightable", etc.). So while I think we should promote free culture as much as possible, and while I can support a licensing policy which allows us a gradual shift towards that goal, I don't expect it to be fully achievable unless there are radical changes in copyright law throughout the world.
I like several elements in this approach.
First, such a "no free image" template is a very clear invitation for people to donate one.
Second, if the board would express a clearer view that fair use is not what we aim for, that in itzelf is a clear signal.
A gradual approach would be more acceptible on the english wiki than an all out attack on all fair use images. For example, there could be a move where person photos would be allowed first, and dealing with other categories such as historical events later.
i wish you health and happiness, teun spaans
On 2/26/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who dislike fair use too.
I think the recent example of the English Wikipedia using a "No free image" template is exactly the direction we should go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
(Incidentally, a very similar system is used by the IMDB, except of course they do not care if their images are freely licensed.)
I am willing to support a licensing policy that is more strict than the current draft, i.e., which explicitly rules out the use of EDPs for purposes such as portrait photos, and limits them essentially to:
- media about significant historical events
- "identifying media" such as logos, jingles, etc.
- excerpts of contemporary copyrighted works (low quality versions of
comic book characters, album covers, music samples, screenshots etc.)
I think we need to also have a vague "reasonable expectation" clause in the resolution that clarifies that, if we can reasonably _expect_ that a free work will be made available, then a non-free one shouldn't be used. This allows us to, over time, shift out more of the above (especially the historical stuff, which I think we can definitely get under free licenses in the not too distant future).
On the other hand, as long as copyrighted works are dominant in the information society, EDPs are the main method by which we can illustrate and excerpt contemporary cultural works. I do think this is a significant part of the mission of the WMF, and that we should make use of the few exemptions to copyright law that there are in order to do it.
Characters from contemporary films or cartoons, for example, are not going to become "free content" anytime soon. Even if we could "liberate" them, this would hardly be our first priority. Those that scoff at Pokemon or Star Wars screenshots should acknowledge that, if we were to ban any such material from being illustrated, it would also exclude the great masters of film, music and painting from most of the 20th century. We should not even try to discriminate here between that which is "worthy" and that which is not; if the work is notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia, it is notable enough to be illustrated.
Moreover, experience has shown that trying to ban non-free content completely tends to only lead to workarounds which are even worse (e.g. people photographing 3D toys of a cartoon character, carefully cropping out all the background, and proudly proclaiming that they now have created a "free work"; logos being flatly claimed to not be "copyrightable", etc.). So while I think we should promote free culture as much as possible, and while I can support a licensing policy which allows us a gradual shift towards that goal, I don't expect it to be fully achievable unless there are radical changes in copyright law throughout the world.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
I like several elements in this approach.
First, such a "no free image" template is a very clear invitation for people to donate one.
Second, if the board would express a clearer view that fair use is not what we aim for, that in itzelf is a clear signal.
A gradual approach would be more acceptible on the english wiki than an all out attack on all fair use images. For example, there could be a move where person photos would be allowed first, and dealing with other categories such as historical events later.
i wish you health and happiness, teun spaans
As a technical solution, I'd say it would be good to go one step further. Watermark nonfree images in such a way that they do not lose their illustrative value, are clearly identified as nonfree, and that they lose enough of their aesthetic value that there's a strong incentive to replace them.
Thoughts?
What I forgot to say: I also like the practical realization that for some categories free content is indeed something we can not reasonably expect. We dont even put our own logo under a free license, we can not expect other to license their logo as free.
On 2/26/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who dislike fair use too.
I think the recent example of the English Wikipedia using a "No free image" template is exactly the direction we should go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
(Incidentally, a very similar system is used by the IMDB, except of course they do not care if their images are freely licensed.)
I am willing to support a licensing policy that is more strict than the current draft, i.e., which explicitly rules out the use of EDPs for purposes such as portrait photos, and limits them essentially to:
- media about significant historical events
- "identifying media" such as logos, jingles, etc.
- excerpts of contemporary copyrighted works (low quality versions of
comic book characters, album covers, music samples, screenshots etc.)
I think we need to also have a vague "reasonable expectation" clause in the resolution that clarifies that, if we can reasonably _expect_ that a free work will be made available, then a non-free one shouldn't be used. This allows us to, over time, shift out more of the above (especially the historical stuff, which I think we can definitely get under free licenses in the not too distant future).
On the other hand, as long as copyrighted works are dominant in the information society, EDPs are the main method by which we can illustrate and excerpt contemporary cultural works. I do think this is a significant part of the mission of the WMF, and that we should make use of the few exemptions to copyright law that there are in order to do it.
Characters from contemporary films or cartoons, for example, are not going to become "free content" anytime soon. Even if we could "liberate" them, this would hardly be our first priority. Those that scoff at Pokemon or Star Wars screenshots should acknowledge that, if we were to ban any such material from being illustrated, it would also exclude the great masters of film, music and painting from most of the 20th century. We should not even try to discriminate here between that which is "worthy" and that which is not; if the work is notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia, it is notable enough to be illustrated.
Moreover, experience has shown that trying to ban non-free content completely tends to only lead to workarounds which are even worse (e.g. people photographing 3D toys of a cartoon character, carefully cropping out all the background, and proudly proclaiming that they now have created a "free work"; logos being flatly claimed to not be "copyrightable", etc.). So while I think we should promote free culture as much as possible, and while I can support a licensing policy which allows us a gradual shift towards that goal, I don't expect it to be fully achievable unless there are radical changes in copyright law throughout the world.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
One thing I am wondring myself is:
what is better: to define things in terms of "fair use", as the foundation is unde US Law, or to define it with the term "fair practice", as used in article 10 of the Berne Convention?
i wish you health and happiness,
teun spaans
On 2/26/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Does this implu that the Board ultimately does discourage the use of such EDPs? At the moment the Board seems quite neutral on them, or even encouraging them to be adopted. I know I am not the only person who would like to see the Board *discourage* the adoption of EDPs, and even indicate a very slow movement towards banning them. And yes I know that gets enWP all huffy... but there are people there who dislike fair use too.
I think the recent example of the English Wikipedia using a "No free image" template is exactly the direction we should go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
(Incidentally, a very similar system is used by the IMDB, except of course they do not care if their images are freely licensed.)
I am willing to support a licensing policy that is more strict than the current draft, i.e., which explicitly rules out the use of EDPs for purposes such as portrait photos, and limits them essentially to:
- media about significant historical events
- "identifying media" such as logos, jingles, etc.
- excerpts of contemporary copyrighted works (low quality versions of
comic book characters, album covers, music samples, screenshots etc.)
I think we need to also have a vague "reasonable expectation" clause in the resolution that clarifies that, if we can reasonably _expect_ that a free work will be made available, then a non-free one shouldn't be used. This allows us to, over time, shift out more of the above (especially the historical stuff, which I think we can definitely get under free licenses in the not too distant future).
On the other hand, as long as copyrighted works are dominant in the information society, EDPs are the main method by which we can illustrate and excerpt contemporary cultural works. I do think this is a significant part of the mission of the WMF, and that we should make use of the few exemptions to copyright law that there are in order to do it.
Characters from contemporary films or cartoons, for example, are not going to become "free content" anytime soon. Even if we could "liberate" them, this would hardly be our first priority. Those that scoff at Pokemon or Star Wars screenshots should acknowledge that, if we were to ban any such material from being illustrated, it would also exclude the great masters of film, music and painting from most of the 20th century. We should not even try to discriminate here between that which is "worthy" and that which is not; if the work is notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia, it is notable enough to be illustrated.
Moreover, experience has shown that trying to ban non-free content completely tends to only lead to workarounds which are even worse (e.g. people photographing 3D toys of a cartoon character, carefully cropping out all the background, and proudly proclaiming that they now have created a "free work"; logos being flatly claimed to not be "copyrightable", etc.). So while I think we should promote free culture as much as possible, and while I can support a licensing policy which allows us a gradual shift towards that goal, I don't expect it to be fully achievable unless there are radical changes in copyright law throughout the world.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org