==Applicable definitions==

: 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.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

; 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.

On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos(a)gmail.com> wrote: EDP 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi, Quoting Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.

Fair use is NC and ND, but you can use it because of EDP.

On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen &lt;londenp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [...] 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(a)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.

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 &lt;bdamokos(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: >

> 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 &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [snip] 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.

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%… (I know there are more...)

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 &lt;mindspillage(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > On 2/20/07, effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

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'.

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 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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh &lt;kwalsh(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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.

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).

permitted. Within the limits of the law, there may be an EDP.

GerardM

On 2/22/07, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well, not if it's a free license. (yeah, I know... ;-)) I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say here. What local laws? When? How? Delphine (confused)

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: >> >> >>> On 22/02/07, Kat Walsh &lt;kwalsh(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Content tagged as NC and ND will on its It will be deleted by 2008 according to the draft 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.

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.

On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 2/21/07, Brianna Laugher &lt;brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Kat Walsh wrote: experience is reduces the suggest is a Hi - It seems there is no consensus for this position:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#promophotos_in_other_l… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Why_we_delete_replacea… - luke _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l