I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
* Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction. * Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
Jeff
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
- Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
- Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
2007/1/28, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
But what if there is no such request? Should we keep everything on the site until we get a request to take it down? Or should we only put things on that are as free as our own texts? Or something somewhere in between? That's what the issue is about.
Andre Engels wrote:
2007/1/28, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
But what if there is no such request? Should we keep everything on the site until we get a request to take it down? Or should we only put things on that are as free as our own texts? Or something somewhere in between? That's what the issue is about.
Doctrine of Esstoppel. Someone puts something up fair use and the owner does not complain, then should be no big deal (though the law says they have to have gotten some sort of notice or discovered its use before the statute of limitation time clock starts ticking).
If someone goes to the trouble of sending a notice to take it down, then it should be addressed, apart from what yould be obvious misuse of someone else's materials.
Jeff
On 1/28/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
This argument is pure copyright paranoia. What I mean by that is that Jeffrey is asserting as fact a hypothetical scenario ("The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation.") That's possible, but certainly not guaranteed.
The Cunctator schreef:
On 1/28/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
This argument is pure copyright paranoia. What I mean by that is that Jeffrey is asserting as fact a hypothetical scenario ("The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation.") That's possible, but certainly not guaranteed.
Hoi, What Jeffrey says is absolutely true. The way you would apparently have it that you only believe it when there is a day in court, having lost all our marbles losing our money as well. People donate their money to have Wikipedia serve content to the world, not to play IANAAL brinkmanship. Thanks, GerardM
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/28/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
This argument is pure copyright paranoia. What I mean by that is that Jeffrey is asserting as fact a hypothetical scenario ("The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation.") That's possible, but certainly not guaranteed.
Yeah? How many of you have actually had to stand in front of a judge with millions of dollars of **YOUR** money on the line. I have stood there more times than I care to mention, and in most cases not by my own choice. Judges will not listen to whining exusces and weak arguments, and you don't get to argue over and over again after they rule -- you have to pay. The real shocker is when the judge orders you to pay the other sides legal fees. What if they hire Coudert Brothers from new York to defend them who charges $500.00/hour and they rack up 350,000.00 in fees just to send a dozen letters and file a complaint and you get ordered to pay it.
Cheaper to take down the content.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 28/01/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Yeah? How many of you have actually had to stand in front of a judge with millions of dollars of **YOUR** money on the line. I have stood there more times than I care to mention, and in most cases not by my own choice. Judges will not listen to whining exusces and weak arguments, and you don't get to argue over and over again after they rule -- you have to pay. The real shocker is when the judge orders you to pay the other sides legal fees. What if they hire Coudert Brothers from new York to defend them who charges $500.00/hour and they rack up 350,000.00 in fees just to send a dozen letters and file a complaint and you get ordered to pay it.
In the example I mentioned, it may be worth mentioning the Church of Scientology has had to pay the attorney's fees for the people they sued many a time.
Cheaper to take down the content.
I suspect in a clear-cut case, you'd be surprised how many friends Wikipedia has.
Not that I consider it a good idea to push it, of course.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/01/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Yeah? How many of you have actually had to stand in front of a judge with millions of dollars of **YOUR** money on the line. I have stood there more times than I care to mention, and in most cases not by my own choice. Judges will not listen to whining exusces and weak arguments, and you don't get to argue over and over again after they rule -- you have to pay. The real shocker is when the judge orders you to pay the other sides legal fees. What if they hire Coudert Brothers from new York to defend them who charges $500.00/hour and they rack up 350,000.00 in fees just to send a dozen letters and file a complaint and you get ordered to pay it.
In the example I mentioned, it may be worth mentioning the Church of Scientology has had to pay the attorney's fees for the people they sued many a time.
It can go the other way -- depends on who wins. In a case where we are using someones copyrighted images and they were posted by a n anonymous editor, I woud dare to guess we may not alays be on the winning side ...
Cheaper to take down the content.
I suspect in a clear-cut case, you'd be surprised how many friends Wikipedia has.
Not that I consider it a good idea to push it, of course.
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
" your honor, we always strive to act in good faith in all situations, and in the present case, we were notified the materials may have been copyrighted and removed them immediately IAW with our policies. Given our actions in good faith, we cannot be held liable as the other side claims since we are simply a third party interactive web service and we have complied with the DMCA at all times ..."
:-)
Jeff
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 28/01/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
In the example I mentioned, it may be worth mentioning the Church of Scientology has had to pay the attorney's fees for the people they sued many a time.
It can go the other way -- depends on who wins. In a case where we are using someones copyrighted images and they were posted by a n anonymous editor, I woud dare to guess we may not alays be on the winning side ...
Oh, yeah. Only a fool *wants* this sort of thing to go to court.
I suspect in a clear-cut case, you'd be surprised how many friends Wikipedia has. Not that I consider it a good idea to push it, of course.
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it. " your honor, we always strive to act in good faith in all situations, and in the present case, we were notified the materials may have been copyrighted and removed them immediately IAW with our policies. Given our actions in good faith, we cannot be held liable as the other side claims since we are simply a third party interactive web service and we have complied with the DMCA at all times ..." :-)
In a serious battle, the Wikipedia's proven leaning more toward copyright paranoia than copyright violation will stand us in good stead! And we do finally have proper channels for outside parties to raise legal concerns with the Foundation.
So in the general case, yes, you're entirely right.
- d.
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
" your honor, we always strive to act in good faith in all situations, and in the present case, we were notified the materials may have been copyrighted and removed them immediately IAW with our policies. Given our actions in good faith, we cannot be held liable as the other side claims since we are simply a third party interactive web service and we have complied with the DMCA at all times ..."
:-)
Jeff
Unfortunately in this case, official policy is that we are simply grabbing content and claiming fair use. We know these are copyrighted images, and yet we are permitting their use on Wikipedia openly, even though we also know that we don't have any sort of permission to do so.
There are some items such as trademarks, bank notes, government seals, ect. that I feel are justified in terms of fair use. I just don't think that nearly everything that currently is being claimed for fair use fits the same rationale. The question here is where to draw the line, and I see at the moment that the current line is to the point that nearly everything that could be claimed under fair use, including overt usage of the non-commercial nature of Wikipedia and the educational mission of the WMF as justification to keep the content. It is for this reason that I question how the copyvio template could even legitimately be used on an image, except if it were redundant or of somebody or something non-notable on Wikipedia.
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
The biggest fly in that ointment is with establishing that they are the undisputed owner. There are as many misconceptions about that as there are about fair use. When that has been established it's good corporate citizenship to remove the material when they ask nicely even if we could win a court fight over fair use.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
The biggest fly in that ointment is with establishing that they are the undisputed owner. There are as many misconceptions about that as there are about fair use. When that has been established it's good corporate citizenship to remove the material when they ask nicely even if we could win a court fight over fair use.
Ec
If they cannot establish they own the rights to the materials to the Foundation, then it is doubtful they will be able to convince a judge of this. An attorney sending a letter or posting a notice asserting such claims are true is about the only bonafide proof there is, short of a court ruling. Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. Falsely asserting copyright ownership on behalf of a client could get them brought up on allegations with their state bar. If they are disbarred, they cannot practice law. Lawyers are not allowed to bill their time to answer bar complaints, and it could take 6-12 hours or more in what would have been valuable time they could bill for. If they work for a law firm, bar complaints can get them in a lot of trouble. As such, any attorney claiming copyright on behalf of a client is most probably telling the truth and has done their homework on the claims.
That's how you tell. When an attorney sends a DMCA notice to the foundation. At which point, the content should come down.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
The biggest fly in that ointment is with establishing that they are the undisputed owner. There are as many misconceptions about that as there are about fair use. When that has been established it's good corporate citizenship to remove the material when they ask nicely even if we could win a court fight over fair use.
If they cannot establish they own the rights to the materials to the Foundation, then it is doubtful they will be able to convince a judge of this. An attorney sending a letter or posting a notice asserting such claims are true is about the only bonafide proof there is, short of a court ruling. Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. Falsely asserting copyright ownership on behalf of a client could get them brought up on allegations with their state bar. If they are disbarred, they cannot practice law. Lawyers are not allowed to bill their time to answer bar complaints, and it could take 6-12 hours or more in what would have been valuable time they could bill for. If they work for a law firm, bar complaints can get them in a lot of trouble. As such, any attorney claiming copyright on behalf of a client is most probably telling the truth and has done their homework on the claims.
That's how you tell. When an attorney sends a DMCA notice to the foundation. At which point, the content should come down.
One of the most important requirements of a DMCA notice is the assertion of ownership. This can be done by the author, his heirs or a legal representative; I think that we agree about that. I'm not presuming that the lawyer in question is trying to make a claim that he knows to be false.
An honestly erroneous claim should not expose him to the penalties that you outline. It's easy to imagine a situation where he has been approached by a client whose legal claims are not sound, but where the potential outcome is uncertain. He needs to look after his client's concern. The lawyer's claim is not proof of anything substantive; it's an opening argument. In most (but not necessarily all) cases the content should indeed come down, but the ISP should at least revue the notice to make sure that it is valid on its surface. I also believe that the notices should be made public in case any editorwants to take the matter further in his own name, and at his own cost.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
The biggest fly in that ointment is with establishing that they are the undisputed owner. There are as many misconceptions about that as there are about fair use. When that has been established it's good corporate citizenship to remove the material when they ask nicely even if we could win a court fight over fair use.
If they cannot establish they own the rights to the materials to the Foundation, then it is doubtful they will be able to convince a judge of this. An attorney sending a letter or posting a notice asserting such claims are true is about the only bonafide proof there is, short of a court ruling. Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. Falsely asserting copyright ownership on behalf of a client could get them brought up on allegations with their state bar. If they are disbarred, they cannot practice law. Lawyers are not allowed to bill their time to answer bar complaints, and it could take 6-12 hours or more in what would have been valuable time they could bill for. If they work for a law firm, bar complaints can get them in a lot of trouble. As such, any attorney claiming copyright on behalf of a client is most probably telling the truth and has done their homework on the claims.
That's how you tell. When an attorney sends a DMCA notice to the foundation. At which point, the content should come down.
One of the most important requirements of a DMCA notice is the assertion of ownership. This can be done by the author, his heirs or a legal representative; I think that we agree about that. I'm not presuming that the lawyer in question is trying to make a claim that he knows to be false.
An honestly erroneous claim should not expose him to the penalties that you outline. It's easy to imagine a situation where he has been approached by a client whose legal claims are not sound, but where the potential outcome is uncertain. He needs to look after his client's concern. The lawyer's claim is not proof of anything substantive; it's an opening argument. In most (but not necessarily all) cases the content should indeed come down, but the ISP should at least revue the notice to make sure that it is valid on its surface. I also believe that the notices should be made public in case any editorwants to take the matter further in his own name, and at his own cost.
Ec
Attorneys do not send letters to a potential third party unless they have done their homework. I would take an attorneys demands as credible in most cases with copyright. Employment law is different as is any situation where the court would have to "balance the equities" you should look hard at the situation since the court will have to weigh through the rights of both parties and come up with an equitable solution (like trade secret law and non-competes as a good example).
There is no balancing test for copyright infringement, its statutatory, and so are the damages. In such a cut and dry case, I would tend to err on the side of caution. At any rate, Brad eloquently addressed the issue and said "if this is a free encyclopedia, why do we have fair use images being used -- use free ones if at all possible and make the issue moot."
:-)
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest. When it comes to content, it is the editors and users and not the Foundation who decide what is on. I don't presently serve as, and don't intend to become, the central authority for what is and isn't acceptable for fair use questions. It is not a subject that is prone to sweeping policy decisions, as counterexamples etc. abound. Again, since the license is the key to the forward looking nature of the project (here en:wp) why someone feels compelled to take the easy way out and {{fairuse}} image the heck out of articles out of a sense of obligation to "improve" it is beside the point.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
-Brad
On 1/29/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
The biggest fly in that ointment is with establishing that they are the undisputed owner. There are as many misconceptions about that as there are about fair use. When that has been established it's good corporate citizenship to remove the material when they ask nicely even if we could win a court fight over fair use.
Ec
If they cannot establish they own the rights to the materials to the Foundation, then it is doubtful they will be able to convince a judge of this. An attorney sending a letter or posting a notice asserting such claims are true is about the only bonafide proof there is, short of a court ruling. Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. Falsely asserting copyright ownership on behalf of a client could get them brought up on allegations with their state bar. If they are disbarred, they cannot practice law. Lawyers are not allowed to bill their time to answer bar complaints, and it could take 6-12 hours or more in what would have been valuable time they could bill for. If they work for a law firm, bar complaints can get them in a lot of trouble. As such, any attorney claiming copyright on behalf of a client is most probably telling the truth and has done their homework on the claims.
That's how you tell. When an attorney sends a DMCA notice to the foundation. At which point, the content should come down.
Jeff
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 1/29/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest. When it comes to content, it is the editors and users and not the Foundation who decide what is on. I don't presently serve as, and don't intend to become, the central authority for what is and isn't acceptable for fair use questions. It is not a subject that is prone to sweeping policy decisions, as counterexamples etc. abound. Again, since the license is the key to the forward looking nature of the project (here en:wp) why someone feels compelled to take the easy way out and {{fairuse}} image the heck out of articles out of a sense of obligation to "improve" it is beside the point.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
We should be expanding (and we are) the amount of content covered by free licenses (GFDL,CC-SA).
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest. When it comes to content, it is the editors and users and not the Foundation who decide what is on. I don't presently serve as, and don't intend to become, the central authority for what is and isn't acceptable for fair use questions. It is not a subject that is prone to sweeping policy decisions, as counterexamples etc. abound. Again, since the license is the key to the forward looking nature of the project (here en:wp) why someone feels compelled to take the easy way out and {{fairuse}} image the heck out of articles out of a sense of obligation to "improve" it is beside the point.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
We should be expanding (and we are) the amount of content covered by free licenses (GFDL,CC-SA).
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
We're not an 800 pound gorilla; but we're much more than a dancing macacque.
I would like to second Cunctator's comments in general. Specifically, while I encourage the development of free content wherever possible, I want to be realistic that there's a tradeoff between covering something well and covering something badly but with entirely free content. I will always come down on the side of a better encyclopedia if an appropriate, legal fair use content add will better Wikipedia noticably.
I had someone just last week suggest that we could find free replacement images for a spacecraft which had been assembled and flown in space already, both for the spacecraft under construction and for the landing. The only people who took and released photos of the assembly who are known are the official space agency photographers (not NASA, India's ISRO), and the landing took place several hundred kilometers out to sea, with one Indian Coast Guard ship and some helicopters in attendance. How exactly are we supposed to go back in time and convince a free-license photographer to go take pictures of those events that already happened? How do we convince ISRO and the Indian Coast Guard to let them do it?
If we don't fight for the meaning and use of Fair Use, we both lose content for ourselves, and lose content for the whole community at large by not helping to uphold fair use vigorously.
If Wikipedia won't stand up for Fair Use, then it's a pretty sad world. We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal and proper in supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content. They are not mutually exclusive. But those who say "oh, if we remove it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it" frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it can't.
Promotional photos of all types are generally accepted to be put out there by people and companies to be reused. The current paranoia surrounding even those in Fair Use here is appalling.
On 1/29/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We're not an 800 pound gorilla; but we're much more than a dancing macacque.
We're neither. For most the net we are wallpaper.
I would like to second Cunctator's comments in general. Specifically, while I encourage the development of free content wherever possible, I want to be realistic that there's a tradeoff between covering something well and covering something badly but with entirely free content. I will always come down on the side of a better encyclopedia if an appropriate, legal fair use content add will better Wikipedia noticably.
I had someone just last week suggest that we could find free replacement images for a spacecraft which had been assembled and flown in space already, both for the spacecraft under construction and for the landing. The only people who took and released photos of the assembly who are known are the official space agency photographers (not NASA, India's ISRO), and the landing took place several hundred kilometers out to sea, with one Indian Coast Guard ship and some helicopters in attendance. How exactly are we supposed to go back in time and convince a free-license photographer to go take pictures of those events that already happened? How do we convince ISRO and the Indian Coast Guard to let them do it?
Experience suggests it or scale models will turn up in a museum
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_1_after_landing.jpg
If we don't fight for the meaning and use of Fair Use, we both lose content for ourselves, and lose content for the whole community at large by not helping to uphold fair use vigorously.
I know of two legal systems that have fair use. People living under other systems get by.
If Wikipedia won't stand up for Fair Use, then it's a pretty sad world.
It is get used to it.
We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal and proper in supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content. They are not mutually exclusive.
Then why was I deleting trivially replaceable non free images for rather a lot of last week? Are you seriously going to tell that since February 2006 no one has been in a position to make a pic of Pickled cucumber?
But those who say "oh, if we remove it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it" frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it can't.
Experience suggests otherwise and at present time there is no significant movement toward deleting all fair use material.
Promotional photos of all types are generally accepted to be put out there by people and companies to be reused.
Please provide details of the licence they are under
On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We're not an 800 pound gorilla; but we're much more than a dancing macacque.
We're neither. For most the net we are wallpaper.
The same could be said of Google. It's become a utility and a stock on the ticker for a lot of people.
I would like to second Cunctator's comments in general. Specifically, while I encourage the development of free content wherever possible, I want to be realistic that there's a tradeoff between covering something well and covering something badly but with entirely free content. I will always come down on the side of a better encyclopedia if an appropriate, legal fair use content add will better Wikipedia noticably.
I had someone just last week suggest that we could find free replacement images for a spacecraft which had been assembled and flown in space already, both for the spacecraft under construction and for the landing. The only people who took and released photos of the assembly who are known are the official space agency photographers (not NASA, India's ISRO), and the landing took place several hundred kilometers out to sea, with one Indian Coast Guard ship and some helicopters in attendance. How exactly are we supposed to go back in time and convince a free-license photographer to go take pictures of those events that already happened? How do we convince ISRO and the Indian Coast Guard to let them do it?
Experience suggests it or scale models will turn up in a museum
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_1_after_landing.jpg
...and when it does, then someone can go take a picture of it and replace the existing ones, and we'll all be happy.
UNTIL THEN, there exists no alternative.
If we don't fight for the meaning and use of Fair Use, we both lose content for ourselves, and lose content for the whole community at large by not helping to uphold fair use vigorously.
I know of two legal systems that have fair use. People living under other systems get by.
If Wikipedia won't stand up for Fair Use, then it's a pretty sad world.
It is get used to it.
We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal and proper in supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content. They are not mutually exclusive.
Then why was I deleting trivially replaceable non free images for rather a lot of last week? Are you seriously going to tell that since February 2006 no one has been in a position to make a pic of Pickled cucumber?
It is arguably both true that there are reasonably replaceable images there now labeled Fair Use (which should be replaced sooner rather than later), and people trying to delete things which are not reasonably or possibly replaceable. This is what happens when we don't have a clear theory of what we're trying to do with fair use, and muddled case "law" precedent and interpretations.
But those who say "oh, if we remove it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it" frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it can't.
Experience suggests otherwise and at present time there is no significant movement toward deleting all fair use material.
I would not be here complaining if there weren't. I am not grandstanding here to make political points because Fair Use in Society is a Big Thing for me. There is serious anti-fair-use activity going on, mostly under the radar, but consistently and widespread. The policy is vague and inconsistent enough to allow that. It's wrong, and it has to be limited.
Promotional photos of all types are generally accepted to be put out there by people and companies to be reused.
Please provide details of the licence they are under
Fair Use.
On 1/29/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
...and when it does, then someone can go take a picture of it and replace the existing ones, and we'll all be happy.
UNTIL THEN, there exists no alternative.
You need to learn to wait. An image is not required today.
It is arguably both true that there are reasonably replaceable images there now labeled Fair Use (which should be replaced sooner rather than later), and people trying to delete things which are not reasonably or possibly replaceable. This is what happens when we don't have a clear theory of what we're trying to do with fair use, and muddled case "law" precedent and interpretations.
No one ever claimed that fair use was clarity personified
I would not be here complaining if there weren't. I am not grandstanding here to make political points because Fair Use in Society is a Big Thing for me. There is serious anti-fair-use activity going on, mostly under the radar, but consistently and widespread.
There is anti abuse-of-fair-use activit going on but anti fair use activity is limited.
The policy is vague and inconsistent enough to allow that. It's wrong, and it has to be limited.
It is limited. It is also the correct course of action.
A the present time the number of fair use images in en does not appear to be falling.
Fair Use.
That isn't a lisence.
On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal and proper in supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content. They are not mutually exclusive.
Then why was I deleting trivially replaceable non free images for rather a lot of last week? Are you seriously going to tell that since February 2006 no one has been in a position to make a pic of Pickled cucumber?
But those who say "oh, if we remove it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it" frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it can't.
Experience suggests otherwise and at present time there is no significant movement toward deleting all fair use material.
Seems like you're working to delete a lot of fair use material.
George Herbert wrote:
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
We're not an 800 pound gorilla; but we're much more than a dancing macacque.
I would like to second Cunctator's comments in general. Specifically, while I encourage the development of free content wherever possible, I want to be realistic that there's a tradeoff between covering something well and covering something badly but with entirely free content. I will always come down on the side of a better encyclopedia if an appropriate, legal fair use content add will better Wikipedia noticably.
I had someone just last week suggest that we could find free replacement images for a spacecraft which had been assembled and flown in space already, both for the spacecraft under construction and for the landing. The only people who took and released photos of the assembly who are known are the official space agency photographers (not NASA, India's ISRO), and the landing took place several hundred kilometers out to sea, with one Indian Coast Guard ship and some helicopters in attendance. How exactly are we supposed to go back in time and convince a free-license photographer to go take pictures of those events that already happened? How do we convince ISRO and the Indian Coast Guard to let them do it?
If we don't fight for the meaning and use of Fair Use, we both lose content for ourselves, and lose content for the whole community at large by not helping to uphold fair use vigorously.
If Wikipedia won't stand up for Fair Use, then it's a pretty sad world. We can be strident in supporting fair use, legal and proper in supporting fair use, and still prefer and work to create free content. They are not mutually exclusive. But those who say "oh, if we remove it, free content of equal value will just sprint forth to replace it" frustrate me to no end. It won't, in a lot of cases, because it can't.
One of the questions I have asked over and over again without even a single reply or good example is to try and demonstrate some other major publication, such as a commercial encyclopedia or a book published by a major commercial publishing house, that uses fair use images in the extent that Wikipedia seems to be using them. I can't think of a significant example to hold up. The only situation I can think of is some web site like MySpace or similar kind of mass website that doesn't really take copyright seriously in the first place. That is hardly a good comparison to stand in the same company.
If you can't handle the fact that the images and artwork are copyrighted and you can't get a copy of that particular photo, live with it! Copyright law is about a government monopoly grant over the control of those image, and you simply must get permission to use those images from the copyright holder. The most common way to do that is through the use of a license that controls how you are permitted to reproduce that content.
The GFDL is one particularly effective way to accomplish this task, if you want the content to remain available under a FLOSS type philosophy, but not everybody in the world cares to have their images reproduced under that sort of arrangement. In some cases (many cases, in fact) there are some photographers who are hoping that by being in the right place at the right time, that they would be able to get some sort of economic complensation for taking that photograph in the first place. Indeed, this is the very definition of a freelance photographer as this is largely what they hope will happen.
Some photos are so defining that they end up becoming literally iconic in stature for what they are portraying. Some of these are in the public domain, but often these are photos taken by photographers who just happened to be in the right place to get it done.... plus have the skills to make sure that at the right moment they were ready with the camera in focus, and a decent enough camera that the image would also come in very clear. These skills often take a lifetime to develop and is the very basis for their economic existance, relying on these unique opportunities.
As far as how to convince a group like the ISRO to allow either a volunteer Wikipedian (or Wikinewsian) to take a photo for things likely to be significantly newsworthy or noteworthy in the future under a FLOSS-type license, that is something that perhaps does deserve discussion. Publicity opportunities of this nature do happen from time to time, and surprisingly there are people who actually do take these photos and submit them to the Wikimedia Commons. I've even had the opportunity on a few rare occasions, but the photography equipment I've had is usually lacking.
You also have the opportunity to address the issue with the group or organization involved and try to get them to release the images under a free license. I have known several groups and even for-profit companies who have gladly donated images to Commons under the GFDL or other free licenses. It isn't nearly as hard or as difficult as it is being portrayed here, and many of these groups actually enjoy that articles about them on Wikipedia are "classed up" by having a few photos about them that are of high quality. When you point out that they still retain copyright over the photos, they are in some ways very interested in the whole concept, which may even be a new idea to some P.R. folks.
I am not against fair use completely, but I do believe that any such usage of fair use content must be significantly limited. Not every photograph or rendered image can or ought to be available under a fair-use justification. And it is also just as important to try to get a "free" alternative, and to try and encourage Wikipedians to "try harder", as in most cases they appear to simply be lazy contributors. I also know that I've made several mistakes myself in terms of uploading content that I considered at the time to be fair use but in fact it really wasn't.
To be very fair particularly to our new contributors, the fair use policies need to be very clear and very limited. They should not have to pass a bar examination on intellectual property rights in order to effectively be able to decide what is reasonable content to upload on Wikimedia projects, or for administrators to have to decide when somebody has gone too far.
I also strongly disagree that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects ought to be the ones "pushing the envelope" in terms of getting right to the edge on fair use legal usage.
Having Wikimedia users organize (outside of the juristiction of the WMF) to campaign to legislators and chief political executives for the advancement of free images and the ability to have images that have orphaned copyright or to set up legislation that would permit legal usage of some of these photos may be a good and worthy goal. I just don't see that pushing the envelope and saying "see this! try and sue me now!" is going to either win friends for Wikimedia projects or really be helpful in the long run.
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
And how much money do you plan to provide to make this possible?
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
That simply isn't the case.
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Your reasons do not support your actions here.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Evidences?
In any case the "no one will sue us" is not a valid argument for wikipedia if only because sooner or latter someone will and it doesn't help reusers.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Annual turnover less than that of my nearest collage. I think not.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
How? Political campaigning is pretty much out. We have neither the money nor the impact. People go to wikipedia looking for information. They are not looking for an ideology
On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
And how much money do you plan to provide to make this possible?
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
That simply isn't the case.
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Your reasons do not support your actions here.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Evidences?
In any case the "no one will sue us" is not a valid argument for wikipedia if only because sooner or latter someone will and it doesn't help reusers.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
Annual turnover less than that of my nearest collage. I think not.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
How? Political campaigning is pretty much out. We have neither the money nor the impact. People go to wikipedia looking for information. They are not looking for an ideology
Information being free... an encyclopedia, specifically, but the constituent flood of information ... is a core Wikimedia Foundation goal.
I don't think we should wage huge PR or legal or paid lobbying campaigns to free up information. I think we should reasonably take a stand that the Fair Use laws mean what they say, and that Wikipedia and others are entitled to make use of them, and do so.
Shying away from it destroys credibility in the single largest free access to content legal model in existence. Free content, including all of Wikipedia, pales in comparison to the significance to world society at large that Fair Use brings.
That may not be true in 10 or 20 years, but for now, we should embrace Fair Use and use it. Fairly, legally, and stomping on those who would attempt to abuse Fair Use in our project, but we should embrace it nonetheless.
On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
And how much money do you plan to provide to make this possible?
One meeeellion dollars.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright
(essentially).
That simply isn't the case.
Please elaborate.
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when
we
can.
Your reasons do not support your actions here.
Huh? What actions, where?
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets
to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash
if
they weren't so reliant on Google.
Evidences?
In any case the "no one will sue us" is not a valid argument for wikipedia if only because sooner or latter someone will and it doesn't help reusers.
Who made that argument?
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound
gorillas.
Annual turnover less than that of my nearest collage. I think not.
Collage?
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
How? Political campaigning is pretty much out. We have neither the money nor the impact. People go to wikipedia looking for information. They are not looking for an ideology
You severely underestimate Wikipedia's impact. Any website that is in the top 20 of the world has a political impact.
On 1/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
How? Political campaigning is pretty much out. We have neither the money nor the impact. People go to wikipedia looking for information. They are not looking for an ideology
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html
On 1/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html
If the first case is the one I think it is she was reprimanded for doing so (in any case the she didn't take the stuff directly from wikipedia but one of our mirrors). Again they were looking for information. If wikipedia tried to campaign to change fair use law it is safe to assume it will not be cited in the area of copyright law.
Furthermore if you look at threads on partisan forums people basically say while they will use wikipedia they are careful not to let it impact their biases.
The Cunctator wrote:
My attitude is that Wikipedia should be pushing the copyright envelope (within reason, of course) on all fronts.
Philosophically I agree with you, but I think that WMF should not be the one playing this role. As an ISP it should maintain an arm's length from these disputes, and respond correctly to all takedown demands. For the sake of keeping itself protected WMF should avoid taking on dumb risks. This does not mean that individual projects cannot take more aggressive stands, but the lines of responsibility must be clear. These must be accepted by individuals. If someone feels strongly that using the Escher drawings is fair use, he should be the one prepared to argue the matter in court. The rest of us should not be kept hostage because of one person's idiotic misunderstanding of fair use.
Oddly enough, there is a bigger problem with people who do not protect their own copyrights. By failing to say yes or no to our uses they keep the situation uncertain. Even those copyvios which seem obvious are not questioned, as much as we may be willing to accomodate their complaints.
All non-governmental content from the past century is covered by copyright (essentially).
Maybe the last half-century. For the US one needs to remember that works published before 1964 had to be renewed, and this was only done for a small proportion of those works.
We should be expanding (and we are) the amount of content covered by free licenses (GFDL,CC-SA).
Yes. This involves not only using free, but making free.
We should also be demonstrating the importance of challenging the absurd life and strength of copyright laws by taking advantage of fair use when we can.
Especially in approaching the question of orphan copyrights. At the same time we should no become fixated on the idea that fair use is the only available tool.
Google is a great example of a company that by dint of its popularity gets to run roughshod over copyright restrictions that companies would squash if they weren't so reliant on Google.
Maybe it's because they don't roll over at the first sign of danger. Paranoia is rarely an effective tactic.
Similarly Wikipedia is now in the position of being one of the 800-pound gorillas.
A mere baby, and growing.
Wikipedia has the power to shape law because of its size and influence.
A significant portion of the Wikimedia community has failed to grasp this.
Ec
Brad Patrick wrote:
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
Well, it is not so rare. In fact there are thousands of fair-use images in Wikipedia-en, that you could not replace with a free ones. Book's and CD's covers, movie posters, logos of companies etc, have no free replacement.
See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Be_%28album%29
Polimerek.
On 1/29/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
To everybody just remember what power we have when we say we are from Wikipedia. Everybody knows Wikipedia, and are honored to have there images on Wikipedia. (I just said thank you to 500 Flickr users, so I know what I am talking about)
Bryan
Brad Patrick wrote:
I wanted to simply state that I have been reading this thread with interest. When it comes to content, it is the editors and users and not the Foundation who decide what is on. I don't presently serve as, and don't intend to become, the central authority for what is and isn't acceptable for fair use questions. It is not a subject that is prone to sweeping policy decisions, as counterexamples etc. abound. Again, since the license is the key to the forward looking nature of the project (here en:wp) why someone feels compelled to take the easy way out and {{fairuse}} image the heck out of articles out of a sense of obligation to "improve" it is beside the point.
The images are fair - not free - and that isn't the same thing. You can argue til the cows come home about any particular example. People do. ;-) But I would once again encourage anyone interested in the issue to ask themselves first why the fair image *must* be there instead of a free one (rare examples) and why it is not instead an easy way out in lieu of the harder task of obtaining free images as equivalents.
What happens in legal terms depends, of course, on the situation. WMF has no interest in fighting really hard for "fair use" in principle, since we are all about free images where there is a choice. Be honest - wouldn't the best Wikipedia be one with no strings attached, with content of equivalent quality?
Thank you for expressing this position. I absolutely agree that it should not be the Board's function to defend some user's claim to fair use, or, for that matter, any user's challenge of a specific copyright under other provisions of the law. Nevertheless, I do feel that the Board should help to facilitate challenges to copyright by individual users, providing that they understand that they are doing so at their own expense, and that WMF must comply fully with legal orders arising from the issue.
I do agree too that what some users claim to be fair use may not be fair use at all. Some of these claims seem to be based on little more than the convenience of the uploading editor. Individual free access should be accompanied by individual free responsibility.
Ec
I think all it takes is one person writing the foundation that they are breaching their copyright, as they do not follow the GFDL-license, under which the person has given his/her texts free? And if Wikipedia is not following GFDL, GFDL doesnt apply to those articles either i guess. In thery, IANAL, it might even be that the foundation has to remove all that persons contributions? :S
Eia
2007/1/28, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
Jeff
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
- Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
- Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In response to effe iets anders, I think this clause of the GFDL applies:
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
It is section 7, the aggregration section.
Bryan
On 1/28/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think all it takes is one person writing the foundation that they are breaching their copyright, as they do not follow the GFDL-license, under which the person has given his/her texts free? And if Wikipedia is not following GFDL, GFDL doesnt apply to those articles either i guess. In thery, IANAL, it might even be that the foundation has to remove all that persons contributions? :S
Eia
2007/1/28, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
Jeff
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
- Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
- Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
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
effe iets anders wrote:
I think all it takes is one person writing the foundation that they are breaching their copyright, as they do not follow the GFDL-license, under which the person has given his/her texts free? And if Wikipedia is not following GFDL, GFDL doesnt apply to those articles either i guess. In thery, IANAL, it might even be that the foundation has to remove all that persons contributions? :S
Eia
I've actually thought about doing a sort of mass-mailing to several prominent artists featured on Wikipedia, saying in effect "do you know that your art work is being used here without permission" and giving an address of the WMF to get it removed.
I think that might get a reaction, but it may not be in the best interest of the WMF to go that far. It does illustrate at least an avenue to force this issue.
For myself, I would rather that the concept of fair use be legitmately reviewed, and that applications of fair use that might be objectionable would be removed well before there is any problem that might surface instead. Unfortunately this is something that may have to come from "the top" on a WMF level and be forced down onto the project. The only ones who are interested right now in setting fair use policy are those who want to see it extended even further rather than those who want to scale it back.
I did not want to suggest we should do this, I just want to point out that we have quite a risk when we really want fair use in the long run. Both from the side of the authors of the picture as from the authors of the text of wikipedia.
Eia
2007/1/28, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net:
effe iets anders wrote:
I think all it takes is one person writing the foundation that they are breaching their copyright, as they do not follow the GFDL-license, under which the person has given his/her texts free? And if Wikipedia is not following GFDL, GFDL doesnt apply to those articles either i guess. In thery, IANAL, it might even be that the foundation has to remove all that persons contributions? :S
Eia
I've actually thought about doing a sort of mass-mailing to several prominent artists featured on Wikipedia, saying in effect "do you know that your art work is being used here without permission" and giving an address of the WMF to get it removed.
I think that might get a reaction, but it may not be in the best interest of the WMF to go that far. It does illustrate at least an avenue to force this issue.
For myself, I would rather that the concept of fair use be legitmately reviewed, and that applications of fair use that might be objectionable would be removed well before there is any problem that might surface instead. Unfortunately this is something that may have to come from "the top" on a WMF level and be forced down onto the project. The only ones who are interested right now in setting fair use policy are those who want to see it extended even further rather than those who want to scale it back.
-- Robert Scott Horning
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
Jeff
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
It basically says that if M.C. Escher objects (BTW, he is dead.... so I guess that is his estate here), then he should contact the "Designated agent" of Wikipedia (aka Brad) in order to remove this image.
IMHO, this disclaimer by itself is almost proof by itself that this particular image is a copyright violation, and I would argue that the other 40,000 images also in [[en:w:Category:Fair use images of art]] also are very likly to be copyright violations. That is not a trivial number of images to be removing.
I don't know directly the liability to either Wikipedia as a project or the WMF as the "sponsoring institution", but I would strongly suggest that fair use has gone way too far here.
This is also (at least to me) a very new philosophy that Wikimedia project might be hosting content that would not necessarily be reproduceable under the GFDL as the lowest common denominator. That essentially this is content that dead-ends just on one project, such as Wikipedia, and can't be used anywhere else. I'm not talking about WMF logos (which is a totally different issue), but for general content that is project related. And the group that espouses this viewpoint is willing to wheel war over this issue as well, so simply deleting the content is not going to be sufficient here. They are already making changing the Wikipedia fair use policy to permit this sort of philosophy, and I'm just a rather lowly ordinary user with no major status on Wikipedia.
That the foundation may have a legal liability issue here is why I'm raising this on a foundation level at all, and because I believe that this is an issue that will affect all Wikimedia projects in the not so distant future. With the current philosophies regarding fair use on Wikipedia, I am trying very hard to find what is considered an infringing image that is a copyright violation. I can't think of a single one. Every image I could possibly imagine has some sort of application under current fair use guidelines to be included in at least some sort of Wikipedia article, and that once there, is often and frequently copied to yet other articles where the usage is much more dubious. The 400 x 600 pixel image I mentioned above is considered "low resolution" too.
On 1/28/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
Hmm yes that is rather a worry. I would argue it's inclusion in [[Hand with Reflecting Sphere (Self-Portrait in Spherical Mirror)]] at a low enough resolution could be legitimately argued to be fair use.
IMHO, this disclaimer by itself is almost proof by itself that this particular image is a copyright violation,
It is prooof that someone doesn't know what they are doing
and I would argue that the other 40,000 images also in [[en:w:Category:Fair use images of art]] also are very likly to be copyright violations. That is not a trivial number of images to be removing.
While it is a bit messy a lot of it isn't to bad. As long as people talk about the artwork in the article it is in it is posible to start building a fair use case.
On 28/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
Hmm yes that is rather a worry. I would argue it's inclusion in [[Hand with Reflecting Sphere (Self-Portrait in Spherical Mirror)]] at a low enough resolution could be legitimately argued to be fair use.
Yeah, there's a place for fair use, and that's probably where it would be. Maybe in a general article on Escher, maybe not.
For the actual *likelihood* of a legal apocalypse for the Foundation - my favoured example again, [[Xenu]] - the important IMO) fair-use image are owned by the Church of Scientology, who are really quite notable for now far they will take legal action to protect what they see as their interests (see [[Scientology and the legal system]] - SCO is *nothing* by comparison) but literally haven't uttered a peep about the CoS-owned images on [[Xenu]] in two years, while CoS staff editors participate extensively in the Scientology-related articles on Wikipedia. Because the educational fair use *in the context of the article* is really not reasonably contestable under US law. And nor have they approached any mirror sites that I know of (and I'm hooked in enough to the Scientology critic community that think I'd know).
(And the image of the word "Xenu" in L. Ron Hubbard's handwriting has been widely distributed in the UK, and worldwide, on Roland Rashleigh-Berry's 'Xenu leaflet' since 1997. I've handed it to CoS staff myself. Not a peep of a legal threat over it.)
IMO, every fair use image on en:wp should have a {{fairusein}} template and only be used in articles carrying that template with an article and a rationale. I'm a big fan of fair use, but I also think it's taken *way* too far in practice. And I think it would be a bad thing for the encyclopedia for fair use to be abused to the point where the Foundation says "no more."
IMHO, this disclaimer by itself is almost proof by itself that this particular image is a copyright violation,
It is prooof that someone doesn't know what they are doing
Assume good faith! But by no means let doing so stop us from winding fair use on en:wp back to something considerably more hardarsed.
and I would argue that the other 40,000 images also in [[en:w:Category:Fair use images of art]] also are very likly to be copyright violations. That is not a trivial number of images to be removing.
While it is a bit messy a lot of it isn't to bad. As long as people talk about the artwork in the article it is in it is posible to start building a fair use case.
I know you're pretty knowledgeable about the state of fair use images on en:wp, so it's very reassuring that it's not *too* bad. Not unfixably so, anyway.
- d.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
It basically says that if M.C. Escher objects (BTW, he is dead.... so I guess that is his estate here), then he should contact the "Designated agent" of Wikipedia (aka Brad) in order to remove this image.
IMHO, this disclaimer by itself is almost proof by itself that this particular image is a copyright violation, and I would argue that the other 40,000 images also in [[en:w:Category:Fair use images of art]] also are very likly to be copyright violations. That is not a trivial number of images to be removing.
I looked at that "disclaimer", and found it excessively confrontational. I was tempted to at least edit off the rough edges, but though it better not to meddle with what you are trying to do.. I saw no mention of WP:OFFICE.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
I looked at that "disclaimer", and found it excessively confrontational. I was tempted to at least edit off the rough edges, but though it better not to meddle with what you are trying to do.. I saw no mention of WP:OFFICE.
Ec
The point I was trying to make here is that the only option that our "desgnated agent" could do here (aka Brad, if he were contacted by the Escher Foundation to remove this content) is to invoke WP:OFFICE and have the content removed. I see no reason that such a disclaimer needs to be here in this first place, and am arguing that this is strongly suggesting that perhaps even having this image on Wikipedia is illegal. I'm sure that somebody thought to add the disclaimer as a form of CYA (cover your assetts), but if you are in doubt in the first place wouldn't it simply be better to remove the image completely?
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AHand_with_Reflecting_Sphere.jpg
I looked at that "disclaimer", and found it excessively confrontational. I was tempted to at least edit off the rough edges, but though it better not to meddle with what you are trying to do.. I saw no mention of WP:OFFICE.
The point I was trying to make here is that the only option that our "desgnated agent" could do here (aka Brad, if he were contacted by the Escher Foundation to remove this content) is to invoke WP:OFFICE and have the content removed.
I see WP:OFFICE as something that can be used when the problem is inherently fixable. It is not the best place for permanent deletions. Being willing to take the material down on request is only a first step, and only a temporary one at that. It doesn't stop another person at some time in the future when Brad no longer has that role from starting the whole process all over again. A temporary take down and WP:OFFICE (or similar) action should show good faith, but if something is to be more permanent it should be followed by a formal OCILA takedown order. To facilitate this we can send them blank forms that are even filled in to whatever extent we can do that. When they are completed and returned they are made public, and can serve as a basis for shooting the resurrection of such material on sight. The only options that anyone who wants the images back up would have would be to start a formal put-back process at his own expense, or wait until the copyright expires.
If this problem is ever going to resolve itself we need to inject a little formality into the process. Neither deleting all potentially infringing material out of paranoia, nor the unbridled addition of material as a dare to come and get us can be very helpful. We should prefer receiving takedown orders; without implying that any such act would be broadly seen as somehow hostile.
I see no reason that such a disclaimer needs to be here in this first place, and am arguing that this is strongly suggesting that perhaps even having this image on Wikipedia is illegal.
Properly worded it should not suggest that we know the material is illegal. With apparently orphaned material it may just be a technique for trying to determine if there is anyone out there who does own the copyright. If it stays up like that for three years with no reply at all it may very well establish that the copyright has been abandoned. At the same time we will be able to produce the historical record of how the image was treated by us.
I'm sure that somebody thought to add the disclaimer as a form of CYA (cover your assetts), but if you are in doubt in the first place wouldn't it simply be better to remove the image completely?
Not necessarily, maybe the image really is an orphan.
Ec
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images being used, and the money from the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If someone object to images being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I recall my interactions on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the debates I had there.
Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get nailed. The foundation will be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to defend the Foundation. It's pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used, then do not use them.
There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could pull out of the bag and use. They could claim unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier, and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party it is being done as a courtesty. This makes it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
When the actual owner of the photograph complains that certasinly boost the issue up a notch, and we should definitely be ready to pay attention to his requests. I did not see that as a factor in Robert's comments. If the person objecting has no connection to the pictures, there is no reason for us to give too much weight to that opinion.
Ec
On 1/28/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
- Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
- Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
As the US code reads, fair use includes: "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research"
It then goes on to describe the four factors involved in determining if a use was fair under those theories: " 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Wikipedia can be argued to fall under aspects of news reporting, scholarship, teaching, comment, and criticism, depending on the details of the particular article and subject.
The US code doesn't say "educational institution". It says "for teaching". It doesn't requires that a fair use meet all four factors, just that those factors be used in the determination.
Regarding the distribution of materials beyond Wikipedia, while it's true that we fall under the "nonprofit educational purposes" clause of factor 1 above, most potential further-distributed users would find protection under 2-4 and the scholarship, news reporting, etc. fundamental fair users.
In particular, factor 2 "The nature of the copyrighted work" rather clearly implies that promotional materials released by organizations are generally expected under law to be reproduced, which is one of the major arguments on en.wp right now.
I think you're misinterpreting Wikipedia's fair-use justification. Fair use is subject to a series of tests. It does not need to pass all of them to achieve the status of fair use. It happens that a few distinctive aspects if Wikipedia -- the ones you've noticed -- allow it to pass the tests more easily.
This does not mean an organization needs those aspects to reuse Wikipedia articles under fair use.
Coupled with the conservative interpretation in Wikipedia's policy of what constitutes fair use, it's clear that Wikipedia isn't trying to foster articles that only it can use.
Regarding the "buyer beware" issue, everything on Wikipedia is *necessarily* buyer beware because Wikipedia is not censored. There has never been a guarantee that the content on Wikipedia won't put republishers in jail for political dissent, obscenity, or other reasons specific to their countries' laws.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article. I guess this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92 section 107:
- Educational fair use - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
- Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair use content.
My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid for inclusion into Wikipedia. The educational exception is a major stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use. In the case of the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial reproduction.
The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies. They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't permit their reproduction. This is essentially a "buyer beware" attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to a 3rd party. The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be displayed on a website run by the WMF.
I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to be going.
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
Robert Scott Horning schreef:
I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
[cut]
I had very recently also a sort of discussion about this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter#Say_no_to_fair_use
I do not see any point in responding further there.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
I would observe that there is one significant difference between the two situations. It is one thing to use a couple of Escher's art works in Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article about him; in my mind that could reasonably be viewed as fair use. The wholesale reproduction of his works in Wikibooks would probably not be. The difference is in the application in the substantiality rule of fair use law.
Of course, it doesn't help to know that some of Escher's works MAY be in the public domain, but it's not up to us to research and make that case on behalf of the uploader.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
I would observe that there is one significant difference between the two situations. It is one thing to use a couple of Escher's art works in Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article about him; in my mind that could reasonably be viewed as fair use. The wholesale reproduction of his works in Wikibooks would probably not be. The difference is in the application in the substantiality rule of fair use law.
Of course, it doesn't help to know that some of Escher's works MAY be in the public domain, but it's not up to us to research and make that case on behalf of the uploader.
Ec
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
I have asked this question repeatedly, and the deafing silence on the response is leading me to strongly think that there is no major publisher who would want to touch these kind of images in the first place without formally contacting the copyright owner in advance and obtaining permission to use these sorts of images. I can't imagine even a book about modern art that is being used as a textbook (by any publisher selling to a college market) that would go into critical depth about a few iconic works of modern art that would be using fair use rationale for reproducing that artwork.
Having been published by Prentice-Hall for a Spanish-language textbook suppliment where I was a co-author, I vaguely remember this issue coming up when I was working with my main editor. Fortunately, I was given access to an image repository that was owned by the textbook publisher, and had so much content that trying to find something that might have pushed the envelope was more a waste of time for me.
I do know that copyright paranoia is hardly the best way to describe the attitude they had regarding the content we were putting together. It was more like copyright insanity where they were questioning nearly every word that was written, and in my case every word that was used in the software code (it was a CD-ROM suppliment). The rationale that is being used here by some Wikipedia users wouldn't have been tolerated for 5 minues if they had tried to get away with some of the more questionable images and been working for this particular publisher.
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove images with questionable status.
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove images with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove
images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually -- removal of the image from articles is done by a bot.
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove
images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually -- removal of the image from articles is done by a bot.
Which I should note includes removal of caption text which obviously is not covered by any image license. It's certainly true that in most cases the caption is meaningless without the image sometimes the caption text is significant to the article on its own.
I believe that removal should be done manually.
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Which I should note includes removal of caption text which obviously is not covered by any image license. It's certainly true that in most cases the caption is meaningless without the image sometimes the caption text is significant to the article on its own.
I believe that removal should be done manually.
Really? Cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_of_the_Philippines_government
Needs sorting out (deleting). Some of the stuff there could probably be tagged fair use but the rest needs to be orphaned.
Before you do that would you mind orphaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indusvalleyexcavation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sistine.chapel.entire.500pix.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LowerFortGarry.jpg
Because that would allow us to clean out Category: Non-commercial use only images once and for all.
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Which I should note includes removal of caption text which obviously is
not
covered by any image license. It's certainly true that in most cases the caption is meaningless without the image sometimes the caption text is significant to the article on its own.
I believe that removal should be done manually.
Really? Cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_of_the_Philippines_government
Needs sorting out (deleting). Some of the stuff there could probably be tagged fair use but the rest needs to be orphaned.
Before you do that would you mind orphaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indusvalleyexcavation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sistine.chapel.entire.500pix.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LowerFortGarry.jpg
Because that would allow us to clean out Category: Non-commercial use only images once and for all.
I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an image licensing zealot.
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an image licensing zealot.
Not really relevant. NC images need to be removed and there is no significant opposition to doing so.
It would appear that you are afraid of putting your edits where your mouth is. You think images should be manually orphaned. Lets see you do it.
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an image licensing zealot.
Not really relevant. NC images need to be removed and there is no significant opposition to doing so.
It would appear that you are afraid of putting your edits where your mouth is. You think images should be manually orphaned. Lets see you do it.
Heh.
I double dare you.
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an image licensing zealot.
Not really relevant. NC images need to be removed and there is no significant opposition to doing so.
It would appear that you are afraid of putting your edits where your mouth is. You think images should be manually orphaned. Lets see you do it.
Heh.
I double dare you.
Already done it. why do you think the main NC cat is so empty? Or you could go through my contribs and see how often "rm deleted image" appears.
Come on I've given you a chance to lead by example or do you have so little real faith in your beliefs that a few hundred edits is too much?
Perhaps it is I mean it took me the best part of a week to sort the NC category so just lets just limit it to the 5 images left in the Non-commercial use only images category and the first page of Works of the Philippines government category.
geni wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Which I should note includes removal of caption text which obviously is not covered by any image license. It's certainly true that in most cases the caption is meaningless without the image sometimes the caption text is significant to the article on its own.
I believe that removal should be done manually.
Really? Cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_of_the_Philippines_government
Needs sorting out (deleting). Some of the stuff there could probably be tagged fair use but the rest needs to be orphaned.
Before you do that would you mind orphaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Indusvalleyexcavation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sistine.chapel.entire.500pix.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LowerFortGarry.jpg
Because that would allow us to clean out Category: Non-commercial use only images once and for all.
I've removed the last item since it is in the public domain, being more than 50 years old
Ec
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove
images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually -- removal of the image from articles is done by a bot.
The bot comments out images, with an explanation. Anyone who edits the page can see that the image was there, what its caption was, and why it was removed.
-Gurch
On 1/31/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove
images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually -- removal of the image
from
articles is done by a bot.
The bot comments out images, with an explanation. Anyone who edits the page can see that the image was there, what its caption was, and why it was removed.
Yes.
Can the detailed discussion about what should or should not be done by bots on en.WP take place somewhere else, where it would be on-topic.
BirgitteSB
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should
be using bots to remove
images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually --
removal of the image
from
articles is done by a bot.
The bot comments out images, with an explanation.
Anyone who edits the
page can see that the image was there, what its
caption was, and why it
was removed.
Yes. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
January 31st, 2007
To Whom it May Concern:
The Committee on Lost Stuff will not meet on Tuesday January 31st, 2007.
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Hearing of John Doe's Lost Toe A. John Doe, Chair B. Jane Doe, Co-Chair
3. Hearing of Jane Doe's Lost Hand A. Jane Doe, Chair B. John Doe, Co-Chair
4. Adjourn
--------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
Moderated.
Ant
Volunteer Services wrote:
January 31st, 2007
To Whom it May Concern:
The Committee on Lost Stuff will not meet on Tuesday January 31st, 2007.
AGENDA
Roll Call
Hearing of John Doe's Lost Toe A. John Doe, Chair B. Jane Doe, Co-Chair
Hearing of Jane Doe's Lost Hand A. Jane Doe, Chair B. John Doe, Co-Chair
Adjourn
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 1/31/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/31/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
My issue is that I don't think people should be using bots to remove images
with questionable status.
All deletion is done manualy.
Deletion of the actual image is done manually -- removal of the image from articles is done by a bot.
Perhaps the point here is which comes first? If there really is an agreement to delete an actual image first, it can't hurt to have the bot come along later to clean up the links. It wouln't be very friendly to proced in the other order.
Ec
On 2/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Perhaps the point here is which comes first? If there really is an agreement to delete an actual image first, it can't hurt to have the bot come along later to clean up the links. It wouln't be very friendly to proced in the other order.
Ec
The problem with that is the backlogs. other than saying beyond a certian date it is not posible to say when an image will be deleted.
On 1/31/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used under the GFDL. The response was that the images were being used on Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks? The Escher reproductions are claiming fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe these to be merely a copyright violation.
I would observe that there is one significant difference between the two situations. It is one thing to use a couple of Escher's art works in Wikipedia to illustrate a biographical article about him; in my mind that could reasonably be viewed as fair use. The wholesale reproduction of his works in Wikibooks would probably not be. The difference is in the application in the substantiality rule of fair use law.
Of course, it doesn't help to know that some of Escher's works MAY be in the public domain, but it's not up to us to research and make that case on behalf of the uploader.
I have one or two books with his works. Afaik there are no works of Escher in the PD.
Ec
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Not me. I have three paper encyclopedias, none of them mentions anything on the source of photographs.
I have asked this question repeatedly, and the deafing silence on the
response is leading me to strongly think that there is no major publisher who would want to touch these kind of images in the first place without formally contacting the copyright owner in advance and obtaining permission to use these sorts of images. I can't imagine even a book about modern art that is being used as a textbook (by any publisher selling to a college market) that would go into critical depth about a few iconic works of modern art that would be using fair use rationale for reproducing that artwork.
Any serious publisher has its own library of photos. Both big and small publishers employ their own illustrators or have a pool of free lancers they employ. I once had a question from a publisher asking permission to use one of my photos in a book, so smaller ones also tend to look around on the web. They dont suffer from paranoia, but they certainly do a good job of checking the copyright status of anything they use.
Having been published by Prentice-Hall for a Spanish-language textbook
suppliment where I was a co-author, I vaguely remember this issue coming up when I was working with my main editor. Fortunately, I was given access to an image repository that was owned by the textbook publisher, and had so much content that trying to find something that might have pushed the envelope was more a waste of time for me.
I do know that copyright paranoia is hardly the best way to describe the attitude they had regarding the content we were putting together. It was more like copyright insanity where they were questioning nearly every word that was written, and in my case every word that was used in the software code (it was a CD-ROM suppliment). The rationale that is being used here by some Wikipedia users wouldn't have been tolerated for 5 minues if they had tried to get away with some of the more questionable images and been working for this particular publisher.
I agree 100%.
--
Robert Scott Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Not me. I have three paper encyclopedias, none of them mentions anything on the source of photographs.
Encyclopedias sometimes put photo credits on a page that is not necessarily adjacent to the article, but on some sort of "credits" page that is listed elsewhere. Encyclopedia Brittanica used to acknowledge authorship of its artlces with just the author's initials, and it was only in the first volume that even listed the names of the authors. At least this is something to look at before jumping to too much of a conclusion.
Also, even if no source was explicitly mentioned, that reference is not strictly necessary for a photographic license.
I know this is a tough thing to prove, but one really good example is all I'm asking for here. The rationale for using such images is very weak if you can't find a clear example in other published media, proving that this is a bleeding edge copyright situation instead of common publishing industry practice. While not perfect for a legal defense, it does help if you can show that others who might be peers have done this and nobody has cared.
I checked three mid 20th century dutch epaper encyclopedias: kleine oosthoek (about 60.000 articles) winkler prins pocket encyclopedie (50000 articles) None of them has something like citaatrecht / fair use mention with the pictures, at the front of the book series or at the end of the books. Sesam pocket encyclopedie (100000 articles) is no longer in my possession, but I had looked this thing up before.
I must note that dutch citaatrecht is much ore limited than US "fair use". For a book cover the law, reading it strictly, allows you to use it in an article discussing the cover, but not with an article discussing the book. The latter however seems to have grown into a habbit, so in Dutch courts this might be considered an "acquired right", or it may not.
teun
On 1/31/07, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Not me. I have three paper encyclopedias, none of them mentions anything
on
the source of photographs.
Encyclopedias sometimes put photo credits on a page that is not necessarily adjacent to the article, but on some sort of "credits" page that is listed elsewhere. Encyclopedia Brittanica used to acknowledge authorship of its artlces with just the author's initials, and it was only in the first volume that even listed the names of the authors. At least this is something to look at before jumping to too much of a conclusion.
Also, even if no source was explicitly mentioned, that reference is not strictly necessary for a photographic license.
I know this is a tough thing to prove, but one really good example is all I'm asking for here. The rationale for using such images is very weak if you can't find a clear example in other published media, proving that this is a bleeding edge copyright situation instead of common publishing industry practice. While not perfect for a legal defense, it does help if you can show that others who might be peers have done this and nobody has cared.
-- Robert Scott Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Sure, here's some: A 1932 Pablo Picasso painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/05/10/picasso.auction.ap/ (credited as "AP Photo", though it's doubtful the AP owns the copyright) A 1939 Pablo Picasso painting: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/year.in.review/story/arts/ (credited as "CNN", again doubtful)
Sometimes it's unclear: A 1953 Mark Rothko painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/11/15/sothebys.auction.reut/ (credited as "Courtesy Sotheby's", but it's unclear whether the "courtesy" means they were given a copyright license, or, more likely, are using it under an {{en:promotional}} type fair-use claim)
My general impression is that fair-use images are quite common in journalism. I don't know about encyclopedias. They are fairly common in educational books---film-studies books frequently make fair use of low-resolution still shots from films.
-Mark
Mark,
neither of the three examples shows that cnn uses fair use. The credits seem to refer to the story. For example: "By Deb Krajnak CNN.com Arts & Style Editor"
probably just means that Deb is an CNN Arts & style editor.
It doesnt say that the image is there under fair use, it doesnt say it isnt. It is perfectly possible that CNN purchased the photo from a photographer, and that the photographer paid the copyrights to the Picasso heirs. Or perhaps he didnt, but then he might get into trouble.
It is no proof that CNN uses "fair use".
kind regards. teun spaans
PS The best course of action is to keep to our goals: create free intellectual properties. Fair usage does not qualify as such.
On 2/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Sure, here's some: A 1932 Pablo Picasso painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/05/10/picasso.auction.ap/ (credited as "AP Photo", though it's doubtful the AP owns the copyright) A 1939 Pablo Picasso painting: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/year.in.review/story/arts/ (credited as "CNN", again doubtful)
Sometimes it's unclear: A 1953 Mark Rothko painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/11/15/sothebys.auction.reut/ (credited as "Courtesy Sotheby's", but it's unclear whether the "courtesy" means they were given a copyright license, or, more likely, are using it under an {{en:promotional}} type fair-use claim)
My general impression is that fair-use images are quite common in journalism. I don't know about encyclopedias. They are fairly common in educational books---film-studies books frequently make fair use of low-resolution still shots from films.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
On 2/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I am curious if anybody who is a regular participant on this mailing list has ever come across an equivalent peer to Wikipedia (aka Britannica or a major website like cnn.com) that would use modern art works (I'm defining modern as created by anybody who has died since 1924) and publish reproductions of them using fair-use as the only justification for their inclusion?
Sure, here's some: A 1932 Pablo Picasso painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/05/10/picasso.auction.ap/ (credited as "AP Photo", though it's doubtful the AP owns the copyright) A 1939 Pablo Picasso painting: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/year.in.review/story/arts/ (credited as "CNN", again doubtful)
Sometimes it's unclear: A 1953 Mark Rothko painting: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/11/15/sothebys.auction.reut/ (credited as "Courtesy Sotheby's", but it's unclear whether the "courtesy" means they were given a copyright license, or, more likely, are using it under an {{en:promotional}} type fair-use claim)
My general impression is that fair-use images are quite common in journalism. I don't know about encyclopedias. They are fairly common in educational books---film-studies books frequently make fair use of low-resolution still shots from films.
neither of the three examples shows that cnn uses fair use. The credits seem to refer to the story. For example: "By Deb Krajnak CNN.com Arts & Style Editor"
probably just means that Deb is an CNN Arts & style editor.
I'm talking about the image credits, written vertically along the right-hand side of the image. Of course they don't explicitly say they use fair use, because nobody would waste space saying that---fair use is an affirmative defense if you're sued, not something you have to declare ahead of time. Nevertheless it's quite clear from context that many journalistic photo uses are {{en:promotional}} fair use.
-Mark
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org