Hello,
As mentionned quickly in previous emails, the board is having a meeting in Rotterdam friday, saturday and sunday.
There will be as well formal or informal meeetings from today till sunday, with professionals, potential partners, or wikipedians; Some of us will visit our facility of Amsterdam, or Kennisnet, or our bank in Belgium. Consequently, most board members and some foundation employees will be hard to talk with on mailing lists or irc this week. We'll be back all fresh and full of news next week.
Agenda for this first meeting of the year is very roughly going along those lines.
* Budget and finances (friday morning). Essentially reporting on the last fundraising. Planification of next fundraising. Brainstorming over our "business model" (endowment etc). In short, generally planning the financial strategy for the coming year. * Audit (friday end of afternoon). Planning audit of this financial year and implementation of some of the suggestions made by the auditors. We'll also meet with Dedalus. * Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence inforcing, domain names, privacy policy... * Personnel issues (saturday afternoon). Discussion about all the possible job openings for 2007, prioritize and identify/discuss possible candidates. Office organization. Staff relationships and roles. Volunteers jobs etc... * Technical summit (sunday). * Brainstorming on quality (sunday)
These are the biggest bits. There are also other issues, which we may or may not discuss according to time availability. Most issues on current agenda are in relation to points number 1 and 2 of our general guideline for year 2007 (sustainability and quality). I hope sunday in particular will be an opportunity to discuss and draft directions for points 3 and 4 (outreach and recognition by non profit world), to expand further in the coming year.
As already mentionned, there is a wikimeet on friday evening as well :-) and hopefully many stroopwafels during the time in Rotterdam.
See you next week on this very list for more.
Florence Devouard Chair Wikimedia Foundation
Florence wrote:
- Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
I would like to suggest that it would be nice if the board could also formulate an advice to the projects concerning the use of non-commercial images? That has been endlessly debated on many projects (esp. the Dutch Wikipedia) and any kind of advice would be immensly helpful.
I'll also be there friday evening. I'll try to bring a packet of stroopwafels ;)
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
On 1/10/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello,
As mentionned quickly in previous emails, the board is having a meeting in Rotterdam friday, saturday and sunday.
There will be as well formal or informal meeetings from today till sunday, with professionals, potential partners, or wikipedians; Some of us will visit our facility of Amsterdam, or Kennisnet, or our bank in Belgium. Consequently, most board members and some foundation employees will be hard to talk with on mailing lists or irc this week. We'll be back all fresh and full of news next week.
Agenda for this first meeting of the year is very roughly going along those lines.
- Budget and finances (friday morning). Essentially reporting on the
last fundraising. Planification of next fundraising. Brainstorming over our "business model" (endowment etc). In short, generally planning the financial strategy for the coming year.
- Audit (friday end of afternoon). Planning audit of this financial year
and implementation of some of the suggestions made by the auditors. We'll also meet with Dedalus.
- Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
- Personnel issues (saturday afternoon). Discussion about all the
possible job openings for 2007, prioritize and identify/discuss possible candidates. Office organization. Staff relationships and roles. Volunteers jobs etc...
- Technical summit (sunday).
- Brainstorming on quality (sunday)
These are the biggest bits. There are also other issues, which we may or may not discuss according to time availability. Most issues on current agenda are in relation to points number 1 and 2 of our general guideline for year 2007 (sustainability and quality). I hope sunday in particular will be an opportunity to discuss and draft directions for points 3 and 4 (outreach and recognition by non profit world), to expand further in the coming year.
As already mentionned, there is a wikimeet on friday evening as well :-) and hopefully many stroopwafels during the time in Rotterdam.
See you next week on this very list for more.
Florence Devouard Chair Wikimedia Foundation
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/01/07, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
Florence wrote:
- Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to
deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
I would like to suggest that it would be nice if the board could also formulate an advice to the projects concerning the use of non-commercial images? That has been endlessly debated on many projects (esp. the Dutch Wikipedia) and any kind of advice would be immensly helpful.
I think the current advice is "avoid, they're not free content."
- d.
Dear David,
knowing the Dutch language Wikipedia-community, I think almost everybody will agree with me that it is no "easy" community. some communitymembers are now trying to approve a non-free license on the Dutch language Wikipedia, the CC-NC. This license is imcompatible with the GNU FDL, and I think that it is, due to GFDL, not allowed to use it on Wikipedia on articles. It is not something to have an opinion about really, it is or it isn't allowed by GFDL. You can at most have another view on the license. I think it is very very important that the Foundation makes it clear for once and for ever what licenses are acceptable on the Wikimedia projects. It is very hard to explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.
In the Dutch language community we have actually not a single expert on the area of copyright and licenses. I doubt lot of other communities have. (With an expert I mean someone who has studied law and is specialized in that aera) So at the end people like you and me have to make this kind of fundamental choises about licenses, even though we do not know what exactly we are talking about, we are just guessing. (just assuming you are not one of those experts, by coincidense) A lot of small communities are struggling with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that. So I second heartely Hay's request, please bring some light in the darkness, and let the blind people see again.
Lodewijk Gelauff / Effeietsanders
2007/1/10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 10/01/07, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
Florence wrote:
- Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things
to
deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...
I would like to suggest that it would be nice if the board could also formulate an advice to the projects concerning the use of non-commercial images? That has been endlessly debated on many projects (esp. the Dutch Wikipedia) and any kind of advice would be immensly helpful.
I think the current advice is "avoid, they're not free content."
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/10/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Dear David,
knowing the Dutch language Wikipedia-community, I think almost everybody will agree with me that it is no "easy" community. some communitymembers are now trying to approve a non-free license on the Dutch language Wikipedia, the CC-NC. This license is imcompatible with the GNU FDL, and I think that it is, due to GFDL, not allowed to use it on Wikipedia on articles. It is not something to have an opinion about really, it is or it isn't allowed by GFDL. You can at most have another view on the license. I think it is very very important that the Foundation makes it clear for once and for ever what licenses are acceptable on the Wikimedia projects. It is very hard to explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.
No we deal with that issue by useing the collective work clause (not it's proper name). Articles with images in are a collection of diffferent works thus the images can be under any lisence as far as the GFDL is concernded.
In the Dutch language community we have actually not a single expert on the area of copyright and licenses. I doubt lot of other communities have. (With an expert I mean someone who has studied law and is specialized in that aera) So at the end people like you and me have to make this kind of fundamental choises about licenses, even though we do not know what exactly we are talking about, we are just guessing. (just assuming you are not one of those experts, by coincidense) A lot of small communities are struggling with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that. So I second heartely Hay's request, please bring some light in the darkness, and let the blind people see again.
FSF publishes a list of lisences and describes them. While we dissagree over CC wikipedia tends to follow the defintions fairly closely:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Translations into a number of languages are linked to at the end.
While we consider the licenses we should not think only from Wikipedia point of view. The philosophical idea is to sum all knowledge and give them to everybody. An article here will be later maybe inside a mobile phone or in a book or in a CD or on the television or carved on a stone... in anywhere in the world. So licenses will get more and more complicated if you consider all this possibilities. I believe, instead of adding new less free image licenses, we should even get rid of Fair Use, and stick only to *Free *PD *GFDL *CC-by *CC-by-sa as commons do. Ohh yes, we will end up with less images, but we will get free versions of some of them anyways. And we will not have any risk for the future from license point of view. "Pure Free Content." Use is as much as you want when you need. I don't want any complication that will stop me sharing any knowledge from here. Isn't this our goal?
Dbl2010
On 1/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Dear David,
knowing the Dutch language Wikipedia-community, I think almost everybody will agree with me that it is no "easy" community. some communitymembers
are
now trying to approve a non-free license on the Dutch language
Wikipedia,
the CC-NC. This license is imcompatible with the GNU FDL, and I think
that
it is, due to GFDL, not allowed to use it on Wikipedia on articles. It
is
not something to have an opinion about really, it is or it isn't allowed
by
GFDL. You can at most have another view on the license. I think it is
very
very important that the Foundation makes it clear for once and for ever
what
licenses are acceptable on the Wikimedia projects. It is very hard to explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of
fair
use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.
No we deal with that issue by useing the collective work clause (not it's proper name). Articles with images in are a collection of diffferent works thus the images can be under any lisence as far as the GFDL is concernded.
In the Dutch language community we have actually not a single expert on
the
area of copyright and licenses. I doubt lot of other communities have.
(With
an expert I mean someone who has studied law and is specialized in that aera) So at the end people like you and me have to make this kind of fundamental choises about licenses, even though we do not know what
exactly
we are talking about, we are just guessing. (just assuming you are not
one
of those experts, by coincidense) A lot of small communities are
struggling
with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language
wikipedia-community
in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal
advice
with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would
require
in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that. So I second heartely
Hay's
request, please bring some light in the darkness, and let the blind
people
see again.
FSF publishes a list of lisences and describes them. While we dissagree over CC wikipedia tends to follow the defintions fairly closely:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Translations into a number of languages are linked to at the end.
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/01/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote: It is very hard to
explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
These links may be useful:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Explaining_why_Deri...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-April/000163.html post from Jimbo re: justifying the "no NC/ND" requirement
BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one would be useful.
A lot of small communities are struggling
with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that.
I have made similar requests on behalf of Wikimedia Commons, and they have gone unheeded, so I guess yours will as well. We all muddle through as best we can. As much as we'd like to appeal to "experts", the sad fact is that many little details are not clear for anyone, even lawyers. Sometimes the only way you find out how the LawTM should be interpreted is by taking someone to court. Probably we don't want to find out that badly. :)
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 1/11/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one would be useful.
You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media (literally translated: Policies on the use of media)
It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to Commons:Licensing.
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
On 11/01/07, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media (literally translated: Policies on the use of media) It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to Commons:Licensing.
Do you have a Dutch-language equivalent of the reuse how-to?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
(The English-language version now appears almost useful.)
- d.
We have far too few active Dutch translators on Commons. Actually none, considering the fact that I do not much translation stuff.
Bryan
On 1/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/07, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media (literally translated: Policies on the use of media) It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to Commons:Licensing.
Do you have a Dutch-language equivalent of the reuse how-to?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
(The English-language version now appears almost useful.)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/11/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
We have far too few active Dutch translators on Commons. Actually none, considering the fact that I do not much translation stuff.
Generally, a Wikimedia project community might invite translator on other Wikimedia projects via - their general discussion page (like Village Pump on English Wikipedia) - [[m:TR#requests from local projects]] (also inclusion at [[m:Babylon]]) - translators-l at lists dot wikimedia dot org -- this works well specially you would like some mailing list posts to be translated - local or Wikimedia Embassies (you may access them via [[m:Wikimedia Embassy]]
If you know other possibilities, please let me know ;)
On 1/11/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
BTW http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing lacks a Dutch translation! Perhaps making at least a summary of the English one would be useful.
NielsF has started working on that, and I have continued his work, although I am only half way through :( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NielsF/Commons:Licentiebeleid I invite everybody who speaks Dutch to start translating.
Bryan
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
Marco
Here:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Copyright_immagini
you can find all the licenses that we allows.
Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Chiesa" chiesa.marco@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
Marco
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
I am sorry to hear this, because this is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. From day one, we have been the *free* encyclopedia.
The Italian community needs to work out a transitional policy to correct this problem... it will take time and a lot of work, and you will have to be gentle with people, but it is just not acceptable to have those images in wikipedia in the long run.
--Jimbo
It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons. This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.
Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.
I am sorry to hear this, because this is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. From day one, we have been the *free* encyclopedia.
The Italian community needs to work out a transitional policy to correct this problem... it will take time and a lot of work, and you will have to be gentle with people, but it is just not acceptable to have those images in wikipedia in the long run.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is better to have no picture at all then a non-free picture, as that non-free picture is shaking the fundaments on which Wikipedia and of course the other wikimedia-projects is built. What would wikipedia be without a free license?
Some time ago there was no free text available either in the context of wikipedia. That has changed. With pictures it will change as well.
I would like to say as well that a lot of times institutions claim rights on the area of copyright they do *not* have. That is of course understandable, they want to stay in control. I would advice the italian community to seek advice from experts (maybe that could be done by the foundation or wikimedia italia?) to find our whether these claims are justifyable and whether they will stand in court as well. You prooved today that it is indeed important to have that found out. And maybe it would be better to loose a case in test tryal in court on this as to be incertain forever. I dont know, i leave that up to the legal department. but maybe we should just consider.
Lodewijk
2007/1/11, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com:
It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons. This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.
Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by
the
Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on
commons.
I am sorry to hear this, because this is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. From day one, we have been the *free* encyclopedia.
The Italian community needs to work out a transitional policy to correct this problem... it will take time and a lot of work, and you will have to be gentle with people, but it is just not acceptable to have those images in wikipedia in the long run.
--Jimbo
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
I studied deep and deep the italian legislation about copyright (i work in a legal office) and our law it's really hard to pass. The civil law have a completely different "modus operandi" by the common law. Other thing... in en.wiki u use fair use... but fair use it's not "free" and it's not usable in every country.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "effe iets anders" effeietsanders@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
It is better to have no picture at all then a non-free picture, as that non-free picture is shaking the fundaments on which Wikipedia and of course the other wikimedia-projects is built. What would wikipedia be without a free license?
Some time ago there was no free text available either in the context of wikipedia. That has changed. With pictures it will change as well.
I would like to say as well that a lot of times institutions claim rights on the area of copyright they do *not* have. That is of course understandable, they want to stay in control. I would advice the italian community to seek advice from experts (maybe that could be done by the foundation or wikimedia italia?) to find our whether these claims are justifyable and whether they will stand in court as well. You prooved today that it is indeed important to have that found out. And maybe it would be better to loose a case in test tryal in court on this as to be incertain forever. I dont know, i leave that up to the legal department. but maybe we should just consider.
Lodewijk
2007/1/11, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com:
It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons. This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.
Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.
The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by
the
Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on
commons.
I am sorry to hear this, because this is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. From day one, we have been the *free* encyclopedia.
The Italian community needs to work out a transitional policy to correct this problem... it will take time and a lot of work, and you will have to be gentle with people, but it is just not acceptable to have those images in wikipedia in the long run.
--Jimbo
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/11/07, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com wrote:
I studied deep and deep the italian legislation about copyright (i work in a legal office) and our law it's really hard to pass. The civil law have a completely different "modus operandi" by the common law. Other thing... in en.wiki u use fair use... but fair use it's not "free" and it's not usable in every country.
The English Wikipedia is actually a bad example, when it comes to copyright, exactly because of the fair use. If you want an example, see how the Polish or German Wikipedias deal with copyright. No fair use, no non-commercial images, strictly free content.
It is doable. And worth the effort. But nobody's asking that you do it *now*. Gradual phasing out of un-free images is fine. But be sure to work toward that goal.
See Danny's "back to the basics" mail for more on "fair use".
Ok, but... if en.wiki will remove the fair use images, for us will not be a problem remove the not free images. Other thing, some of the images on commons are not free in all part of the world, that's a problem, than, also de.wiki and other project, are not a good example ^_-.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "Łukasz Garczewski" lgarczewski@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
On 1/11/07, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com wrote:
I studied deep and deep the italian legislation about copyright (i work in a legal office) and our law it's really hard to pass. The civil law have a completely different "modus operandi" by the common law. Other thing... in en.wiki u use fair use... but fair use it's not "free" and it's not usable in every country.
The English Wikipedia is actually a bad example, when it comes to copyright, exactly because of the fair use. If you want an example, see how the Polish or German Wikipedias deal with copyright. No fair use, no non-commercial images, strictly free content.
It is doable. And worth the effort. But nobody's asking that you do it *now*. Gradual phasing out of un-free images is fine. But be sure to work toward that goal.
See Danny's "back to the basics" mail for more on "fair use".
Łukasz Garczewski wrote:
The English Wikipedia is actually a bad example, when it comes to copyright, exactly because of the fair use. If you want an example, see how the Polish or German Wikipedias deal with copyright. No fair use, no non-commercial images, strictly free content.
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use. And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
Marco
On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
less than 1000 of each less
And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
That isn't quite the case.
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
less than 1000 of each less
And the list is being whittled down all the time. The commitment to get rid of them is there.
And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
That isn't quite the case.
Fair use is an important freedom under US law that many on the English wikipedia are loath to abandon. There is always going to be fair use in Wikipedia, and we are unlikely to want to eradicate it entirely - for one thing, pretty much all language versions of Wikipedia use fair use text quotations (or whatever the local legal equivalent is).
-Matt
On 13/01/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
less than 1000 of each less
And the list is being whittled down all the time. The commitment to get rid of them is there.
And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
That isn't quite the case.
Fair use is an important freedom under US law that many on the English wikipedia are loath to abandon. There is always going to be fair use in Wikipedia, and we are unlikely to want to eradicate it entirely - for one thing, pretty much all language versions of Wikipedia use fair use text quotations (or whatever the local legal equivalent is).
Keeping aside the "fair use text quotations" (what the??), are you sure you're speaking for everyone when you say "we" there? Somehow I feel certain I'm not the only one who would like to get rid of fair use on en.wp, and envisages a happy English Wikipedia future without this crutch.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Allowing fair use is not an issue of convenience. There are some items that will not be available in any free form until their copyrights expire that also have no substitutes. We cannot simply refuse to use such items when we need them to discuss a topic.
For example, if an article discusses the controversy between Apple's Sherlock and the competing program Watson, it's necessary to invoke fair use to illustrate the differences through screenshots. Even the most descriptive prose cannot suffice when the topic is the visual looks of the user interfaces.
And thoroughness is better than purity. With license-annotated, thorough content, you can easily remove the offending bits to achieve purity. The converse is not so easy.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 13/01/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
less than 1000 of each less
And the list is being whittled down all the time. The commitment to get rid of them is there.
And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
That isn't quite the case.
Fair use is an important freedom under US law that many on the English wikipedia are loath to abandon. There is always going to be fair use in Wikipedia, and we are unlikely to want to eradicate it entirely - for one thing, pretty much all language versions of Wikipedia use fair use text quotations (or whatever the local legal equivalent is).
Keeping aside the "fair use text quotations" (what the??), are you sure you're speaking for everyone when you say "we" there? Somehow I feel certain I'm not the only one who would like to get rid of fair use on en.wp, and envisages a happy English Wikipedia future without this crutch.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/13/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Allowing fair use is not an issue of convenience. There are some items that will not be available in any free form until their copyrights expire that also have no substitutes. We cannot simply refuse to use such items when we need them to discuss a topic.
You see, this exactly the very reason why on it.wikipedia non free licenses are allowed, i.e. because there are things that cannot be illustrated with free images because the copyright on these images is all they're worth to their owner. Fair use is one (legitimate, IMHO) way of going round this, asking for permission to use the same thing is another, where you have the added bonus that the copyright owner has agreed so she cannot sue you for copyright violation. Unfortunately, not all legislations allow fair use in the same way (newspapers have a wider access to "diritto di cronaca" - right to tell, which is quite similar to fair use to me).
For example, if an article discusses the controversy between Apple's
Sherlock and the competing program Watson, it's necessary to invoke fair use to illustrate the differences through screenshots. Even the most descriptive prose cannot suffice when the topic is the visual looks of the user interfaces.
I agree, but this does not make those images free.
Marco aka Cruccone
If there is no freely licensed substitute, I think we have in the long run justr to accept that, and work with substitutes of minor quality. Thats just bad luck, but a direct consequence of what we are doing. That is a consequence of our choise for freedom, for free licenses. How can you EVER expect a photographer, national institutes, record labels, to license their stuff freely when even *we* refuse to use the free versions of lower quality, and use copyrighted content under the flag of fair use?
I think snowdog made an excellent point in this discussion. NC is more free as Fair Use. So a direct consequence would be that NC should be allowed on Wikipedia. Even educational use only is more free. So if we choose for fair use in the long run, we have to be fair ourselves, and accept those as well. (To be clear: I am totally against allowing either NC, either educational-only either fair use). It just might very well be that the GFDL is worthless then, and when people are talking about throwing out our principles, what is more our principle then free licences?
Lodewijk
2007/1/13, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com:
On 1/13/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Allowing fair use is not an issue of convenience. There are some items that will not be available in any free form until their copyrights expire that also have no substitutes. We cannot simply refuse to use such items when we need them to discuss a topic.
You see, this exactly the very reason why on it.wikipedia non free licenses are allowed, i.e. because there are things that cannot be illustrated with free images because the copyright on these images is all they're worth to their owner. Fair use is one (legitimate, IMHO) way of going round this, asking for permission to use the same thing is another, where you have the added bonus that the copyright owner has agreed so she cannot sue you for copyright violation. Unfortunately, not all legislations allow fair use in the same way (newspapers have a wider access to "diritto di cronaca" - right to tell, which is quite similar to fair use to me).
For example, if an article discusses the controversy between Apple's
Sherlock and the competing program Watson, it's necessary to invoke fair use to illustrate the differences through screenshots. Even the most descriptive prose cannot suffice when the topic is the visual looks of the user interfaces.
I agree, but this does not make those images free.
Marco aka Cruccone _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The difference is that material licensed NC usually has freer substitutes. Invoking fair use usually indicates the absence of a substitute. Furthermore, fair use and NC are orthogonal considerations: an image can be neither, one, or both. Just because we might allow fair use as a compromise doesn't mean compromises elsewhere are warranted. I don't see the logical step from allowing fair use to allowing non-commercial media.
So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
effe iets anders wrote:
If there is no freely licensed substitute, I think we have in the long run justr to accept that, and work with substitutes of minor quality. Thats just bad luck, but a direct consequence of what we are doing. That is a consequence of our choise for freedom, for free licenses. How can you EVER expect a photographer, national institutes, record labels, to license their stuff freely when even *we* refuse to use the free versions of lower quality, and use copyrighted content under the flag of fair use?
I think snowdog made an excellent point in this discussion. NC is more free as Fair Use. So a direct consequence would be that NC should be allowed on Wikipedia. Even educational use only is more free. So if we choose for fair use in the long run, we have to be fair ourselves, and accept those as well. (To be clear: I am totally against allowing either NC, either educational-only either fair use). It just might very well be that the GFDL is worthless then, and when people are talking about throwing out our principles, what is more our principle then free licences?
Lodewijk
2007/1/13, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com:
On 1/13/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Allowing fair use is not an issue of convenience. There are some items that will not be available in any free form until their copyrights expire that also have no substitutes. We cannot simply refuse to use such items when we need them to discuss a topic.
You see, this exactly the very reason why on it.wikipedia non free licenses are allowed, i.e. because there are things that cannot be illustrated with free images because the copyright on these images is all they're worth to their owner. Fair use is one (legitimate, IMHO) way of going round this, asking for permission to use the same thing is another, where you have the added bonus that the copyright owner has agreed so she cannot sue you for copyright violation. Unfortunately, not all legislations allow fair use in the same way (newspapers have a wider access to "diritto di cronaca" - right to tell, which is quite similar to fair use to me).
For example, if an article discusses the controversy between Apple's
Sherlock and the competing program Watson, it's necessary to invoke fair use to illustrate the differences through screenshots. Even the most descriptive prose cannot suffice when the topic is the visual looks of the user interfaces.
I agree, but this does not make those images free.
Marco aka Cruccone _______________________________________________ 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 snowdog made an excellent point in this discussion. NC is more free as Fair Use. So a direct consequence would be that NC should be allowed on Wikipedia. Even educational use only is more free. So if we choose for fair use in the long run, we have to be fair ourselves, and accept those as well. (To be clear: I am totally against allowing either NC, either educational-only either fair use). It just might very well be that the GFDL is worthless then, and when people are talking about throwing out our principles, what is more our principle then free licences?
I too have have serious reservations about Non-Commercial or Educational Only licences. I feel more comfortable with fair use. I rather suspect that these restricted licences stem from some sort of a political stand about profit-making companies. It's an idealistic approach that failed to consider the consequences.
Ec
On 1/12/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Keeping aside the "fair use text quotations" (what the??), are you sure you're speaking for everyone when you say "we" there? Somehow I feel certain I'm not the only one who would like to get rid of fair use on en.wp, and envisages a happy English Wikipedia future without this crutch.
The 'we' corresponded to fair use text.
In the modern world in which everything is copyrighted, everything written or recorded by anyone is copyrighted. We can only quote people, books, news media etc. through fair use. Without the ability to quote e.g. politician's statements, what the news media said about something, etc etc, it would be a lot harder to write a factual encyclopedia.
This stuff happens so much and so naturally that nobody realises "fair use" (or its equivalent in other legal systems) is what it relies on. Fair Use isn't just for images.
-Matt
There are over 7,500 "promophotos", which qualify as "fair use". The english wiki would do well to abandon them, they are NOT free, and should be replaceble. As a sysop on the dutch wiki involved in the removal of copyrighted images, I get complaints time and again: "but they have been approved on the english wiki". It would certainly make life easier if the english wiki got rid of them.
On 1/12/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
So, when is the English wikipedia planning to get rid of the noncommercial and wikipedia-only images that are still in use.
less than 1000 of each less
And what about fair use, which to me sounds like wikipedia-only but without asking permission?
That isn't quite the case.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
I would like to say as well that a lot of times institutions claim rights on the area of copyright they do *not* have.
That's very common.
That is of course understandable, they want to stay in control. I would advice the italian community to seek advice from experts (maybe that could be done by the foundation or wikimedia italia?) to find our whether these claims are justifyable and whether they will stand in court as well.
Somehow we are not very far ahead if we must run to a lawyer every time we dispute a copyright claim. The legal costs will go up very quickly, at the same time that it costs the false claimant nothing. It hould be up to the claimant to start legal action.
You prooved today that it is indeed important to have that found out. And maybe it would be better to loose a case in test tryal in court on this as to be incertain forever. I dont know, i leave that up to the legal department. but maybe we should just consider.
Yes it would move the topic forward if we lost a case! The case would move even further forward if we won. I doubt, however, that it would ever get to trial. How do you handle a legal bluff?
Ec
On 1/11/07, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com wrote:
This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.
iustum enim est bellum quibus necessarium, et pia arma ubi nulla in armis spes est?
Not my vision of Wikimedia projects
Zuir DJ wrote:
On 1/11/07, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com wrote:
This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.
iustum enim est bellum quibus necessarium, et pia arma ubi nulla in armis spes est?
Not my vision of Wikimedia projects
I've never quite understood the idea that re-users should be 'free' to levy a charge for something when the author wishes to make it 'freely' available. Surely making something 'free' to everyone is the greater freedom than the freedom to allow a charge to be made? And don't those who may make such a charge unfairly benefit if they make a profit? Or is it only freedom to cover costs that we mean - luke
senpai wrote:
It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons.
I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"'s right to do this. If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
Ec
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" Matthew 7:4
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:18 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
senpai wrote:
It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons.
I would suggest that you investigate the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"'s right to do this. If I, as a foreign tourist, chose to go to the museum, take pictures of old masters' works, and upload them into commons when I got home, I don't think there's much they can do about it.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Don't turn this into a situation where you leverage what annoys some people (non-commercial media) against what annoys you (fair-use media). That doesn't accomplish anything.
senpai wrote:
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
senpai wrote:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their stricter rules. Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that it is in the public domain in Italy. (Has Italy accepted for copyrights to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still life + 50?) If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into commons. If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with copyright, but is something else.
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as some kind of blackmail. What the Italian language project does, and what the English project does have nothing to do with each other. In Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death. Keeping everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
Ec
The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images and the CC-NC.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
senpai wrote:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their stricter rules. Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that it is in the public domain in Italy. (Has Italy accepted for copyrights to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still life + 50?) If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into commons. If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with copyright, but is something else.
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as some kind of blackmail. What the Italian language project does, and what the English project does have nothing to do with each other. In Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death. Keeping everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think the equity you're suggesting is harmful.
The English Wikipedia's policy on fair use freely admits that fair-use media is inferior to free media. But if people in Italy can't publish under the fair-use exception, that doesn't give the Italian Wikipedia justification to use non-commercial media.
Allowing non-commercial media doesn't fill the gap in content that Italian law creates by banning fair use. It just seems vindictive.
Let's say we're both pastry chefs. I'm baking a pie. Even though I'm against using saturated fats, I know that the final touch of flaky crust requires a bit of shortening. So I compromise.
Now, let's say your bakery has a policy against using shortening. It would be irrational for you to go back to your kitchen and start using margarine loaded with trans-fats just because I'm using shortening and you can't. You just end up -- nothing gained -- with an unhealthy pie.
senpai wrote:
The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images and the CC-NC.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
senpai wrote:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their stricter rules. Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that it is in the public domain in Italy. (Has Italy accepted for copyrights to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still life + 50?) If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into commons. If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with copyright, but is something else.
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as some kind of blackmail. What the Italian language project does, and what the English project does have nothing to do with each other. In Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death. Keeping everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
Ec
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
May I disagree with this reasoning?
That the italian law disapproves of fair use makes it only more compelling to find truly free images.
On the Dutch wiki we abolished fair use over a year ago, and it is my wish the english wiki would do so as well: they are basically not free. Forbidding them makes people more anxious to go hunting for them. Or creating them.
Replacing fair use with NC is no real solution. I hear people complaining about the need for air use all the time. There may be a few cases (screenshots of commercial programs, photos of people who died recently) for which no free alternative can be created. But mostly free alternatives can potentially be created.
teun
On 1/15/07, senpai wikisenpai@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images and the CC-NC.
Senpai
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week
senpai wrote:
May be they cant' be so much thing in other country... but they can be in italy. I don't know if u know well or not the basics rules of procedural penal "civil law" system. In genral... if an italian people upload some images (like the one that u have take for the example) on commons, and that images must have an authorization, is not important if the commons servers are in florida or in italy or in another country, the italian people is under the italian penal law. Idem if an american people upload that images on commons and an italian people use this images.... U can't upload somthing with "PD" or CC-by (for example), on commons if not in all states u can use that materials. Commons, for that reason, had deleted all images that was tagged with "PD-Italy"... than... wich is the difference ?
Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their stricter rules. Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that it is in the public domain in Italy. (Has Italy accepted for copyrights to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still life + 50?) If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into commons. If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with copyright, but is something else.
For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.
I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as some kind of blackmail. What the Italian language project does, and what the English project does have nothing to do with each other. In Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death. Keeping everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense.
Ec
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
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
teun spaans wrote:
May I disagree with this reasoning?
That the italian law disapproves of fair use makes it only more compelling to find truly free images.
On the Dutch wiki we abolished fair use over a year ago, and it is my wish the english wiki would do so as well: they are basically not free. Forbidding them makes people more anxious to go hunting for them. Or creating them.
Replacing fair use with NC is no real solution. I hear people complaining about the need for air use all the time. There may be a few cases (screenshots of commercial programs, photos of people who died recently) for which no free alternative can be created. But mostly free alternatives can potentially be created.
teun
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
Marco,
I understand your point of view.
But consider this question: if both the german and the dutch wiki can do without fair use, or local equivalent, why would the italian wiki need a NC substitute for fair use?
teun
On 1/15/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published under "fair use" or something like this.
Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and that would be acceptable on Commons.
Thanks, GerardM
Marco Chiesa schreef:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine the image with another.
Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout, where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on. Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
teun
On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published under "fair use" or something like this.
Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and that would be acceptable on Commons.
Thanks, GerardM
Marco Chiesa schreef:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of organisations.
What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed, typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours in art.
Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the criticism does not necessarily apply.
Thanks, GerardM
teun spaans schreef:
ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine the image with another.
Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout, where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on. Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
teun
On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published under "fair use" or something like this.
Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and that would be acceptable on Commons.
Thanks, GerardM
Marco Chiesa schreef:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
You intention of allowing logos is one, but the means you suggest open a far wider array of possibilities.
And what you suggest about editorial reasons is not covered by the license text: ""Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License"
So an assembly with some other works is allowed (contrary what i assumed in my previous post), but adaptions for editorial reasons are not.
So I do keep my reservations on your suggestion.
kind regards, teun
On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Yes indeed, no derivatives. My intention is to allow logos of organisations.
What I suggest is not necessarily to accept ND photos, but maybe also accept ND photos. The point of ND is that it does not allow to change material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed, typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours in art.
Any way, for me this is a different discussion. Consequently, the criticism does not necessarily apply.
Thanks, GerardM
teun spaans schreef:
ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations)
This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine the image with another.
Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout, where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on. Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine.
teun
On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things things that cannot be compared as they are so different.
The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do.
To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published under "fair use" or something like this.
Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and that would be acceptable on Commons.
Thanks, GerardM
Marco Chiesa schreef:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
Marco
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The point of ND is that it does not allow to change material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed, typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours in art.
While it is important to have an accurate copy of original art as a reference point, I have no problem when a user (in the spirit of Andy Warhol) plays with the colours of a work of art. Sometimes a work of art can be studied better by electronically enhancing certain parts of the spectrum.
Also, not all scans are the same. Poor scanning equipment and software can itself generate distortions of coulour.
Ec
On 15/01/07, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me.
I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)?
In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
Are people removing NC tags and replacing them with fair-use, rather than additionally qualifying them with fair-use? (I honestly don't know) We should probably look into that.
Andrew Gray wrote:
In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full
source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
Requiring this is important to the extent to whatever extent we may allow fair use. With this in hand a potential downstream user has the tools for determining whether his own use would qualify as fair use.
Ec
On 17/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
Requiring this is important to the extent to whatever extent we may allow fair use. With this in hand a potential downstream user has the tools for determining whether his own use would qualify as fair use.
Any fair use image without these needs to be marked for immediate attention and then deletion if not remedied. "Fair use" is fair use in a given context (hence the {{fairusein}} template).
I'm a great fan of fair use images on en:wp when used properly - quoting images is as important to being able to discuss things at all as quoting text is - but as far as I can tell, really quite a lot of the allegedly "fair use" images on en:wp should be taken out and shot.
[cc'd to wikien-l for discussion]
- d.
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.
Requiring this is important to the extent to whatever extent we may allow fair use. With this in hand a potential downstream user has the tools for determining whether his own use would qualify as fair use.
Any fair use image without these needs to be marked for immediate attention and then deletion if not remedied. "Fair use" is fair use in a given context (hence the {{fairusein}} template).
I'm a great fan of fair use images on en:wp when used properly - quoting images is as important to being able to discuss things at all as quoting text is - but as far as I can tell, really quite a lot of the allegedly "fair use" images on en:wp should be taken out and shot.
You want to try telling the WikiProject Album that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Album_covers_...
On 17/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a great fan of fair use images on en:wp when used properly - quoting images is as important to being able to discuss things at all as quoting text is - but as far as I can tell, really quite a lot of the allegedly "fair use" images on en:wp should be taken out and shot.
You want to try telling the WikiProject Album that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Album_covers_...
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
- d.
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
The vast majority of album covers on the English Wikipedia are not used in the context of 'album cover analysis' are anything like that, but usually just to give an overview of albums by a certain artist or even to use as a photograph to identify the artist. The problem therefore still remains that a large part of articles can't be freely distributed (with images) without checking first if there are any copyright problems. E.g. the Dutch-language Wikipedia doesn't allow album and book covers under fair use, even though it is probably legal under Dutch law (a proposal to include album covers with articles was voted down). Having fair use on the English Wikipedia therefore makes it more difficult to distribute its contents.
-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]
On 1/17/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
geni wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
That's not true at all---quotes can be used to illustrate a more general topic as well, or as supporting evidence for a hypothesis, or many other things other than specifically talking about the work being quoted. For example, [[en:anarchism]] quotes sentences or paragraphs from several political-science authors who have written books about anarchism, which is perfectly fine despite the page not being specifically about those books.
-Mark
On 17/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
No, that's an illustration of the thing actually being talked about that can't really be substituted (the way a picture of a living person can).
My favourite example is [[Xenu]]. I think the BBC and South Park screencaps could be lived without, but the book covers, Sea Org logo and snippet of Hubbard's handwriting are entirely relevant fair use in an educational article about Xenu.
- d.
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
No, that's an illustration of the thing actually being talked about that can't really be substituted (the way a picture of a living person can).
My favourite example is [[Xenu]]. I think the BBC and South Park screencaps could be lived without, but the book covers, Sea Org logo and snippet of Hubbard's handwriting are entirely relevant fair use in an educational article about Xenu.
Those things are all talked about in the article. However to chose an example at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Bring_Me_Down_%28album%29
Doesn't mention the album cover.
I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including the bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to include these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large parts of the world.
Please keep in mind that we english wiki is not the same as USA. The stuff on the english wiki should be equially well usable all over the world: UK, australia, canada, new zealand, israel, african countries, india, you name it. The need for fair use images is often greatly exaggerated.
Please keep in mind: a) our aim is to cerate an encyclopedia the knowledge of which can be freely modified and distributed b) our aim is not to illustrate articles for the sake of illustration c) our aim is not to exploit all loopholes of USA law d) our aim is not be nice to each other and thus ruin our goal e) our aim is only to built an encyclopedia in all languages of which all knowledge is truly free.
kind regards, ~~~~
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.
Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.
No, that's an illustration of the thing actually being talked about that can't really be substituted (the way a picture of a living person can).
My favourite example is [[Xenu]]. I think the BBC and South Park screencaps could be lived without, but the book covers, Sea Org logo and snippet of Hubbard's handwriting are entirely relevant fair use in an educational article about Xenu.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/01/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including the bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to include these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large parts of the world.
Looking at those pictures, and speaking more generally, the book covers and handwriting images, despite being Fair Use, do add to the article. Such images reflect the culture surrounding subject of the article.
Certainly. Book and album covers do reflect the culture and in that way enhance the article, but i do not find them indispensable. The articles generally remain perfectly understandable without them. If there was a free alternative, I wouldnt object to adding them. If someone would donate a huge sum to buy all Sony album covers in the public domain, and Sony would be willing to sell those rights, I'd be perfectly happy with them. But alas I dont see anyone donating such a gift, and if someone did, I doubt the major music publishers and book publishers would be willing to sell them.
If an image, free or fair use, didnt add to an article, we wouldnt have a discussion, we would probably already have it removed.
So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of knowledge?
teun
On 1/18/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/01/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including
the
bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to
include
these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large
parts
of the world.
Looking at those pictures, and speaking more generally, the book covers and handwriting images, despite being Fair Use, do add to the article. Such images reflect the culture surrounding subject of the article.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
teun spaans wrote:
So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of knowledge?
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in.
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
-Mark
That's very well said, Mark. I agree wholeheartedly.
Delirium wrote:
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in.
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
-Mark
Hoi, When it is painful that things are not available in Wikipedia because we do not allow for fair use, it will stimulate the debate about the way copyright is an offence to bringing information and science to the people. By using fair use pictures you allow the status quo to maintain it self. The dearth of material about certain subjects makes them even less relevant. For the parties like the RIAA it is important to realise that without the availability of material like this, many of their artists will only be forgotten that much quicker. Not that they are likely to care because there is always the next boy band or girlie group to hype. Thanks, GerardM
Delirium schreef:
teun spaans wrote:
So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of knowledge?
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in.
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
-Mark
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When it is painful that things are not available in Wikipedia because we do not allow for fair use, it will stimulate the debate about the way copyright is an offence to bringing information and science to the people. By using fair use pictures you allow the status quo to maintain it self. The dearth of material about certain subjects makes them even less relevant. For the parties like the RIAA it is important to realise that without the availability of material like this, many of their artists will only be forgotten that much quicker. Not that they are likely to care because there is always the next boy band or girlie group to hype.
This is an interesting perspective. There is still a need to differentiate between how existing copyright law relates to Wikimedia projects, and what, if anything, we should be doing to promote changes to copyright law. Both are important, and both require a high degree of individual acceptance of responsibility.
In regards to the former highly compliant policies that attempt to avoid the slightest hint of a lawsuit keep the likes of RIAA very happy, and do nothing to advance the projects. Overly aggressive policies can be just as harmful because they will drain the Foundation in unwinnable lawsuits. Ironically, if no one so much as takes the first steps in a legal proceeding that is probably a sign that we are being too timid. Such proceedings can be an incentive to review the issues involved in the light of real circumstances, and in most cases we can take the opportunity to concede before the matter gets out of hand, and to push forward conservatively in only those cases where vital issues are at stake. For the most part the burden of taking these matters further along the legal paths should rest with the person who has the belief that some particular text or image is indispensible to the relevant Wikimedia project.
I think that our mission is more than simply regurgitating material that is already free. To me it also involves freeing that which is not yet free. With material that is clearly protected this may involve simply getting permissions which the owner is easily willing to give. Sometimes the owner is simply not findable, and the material is orphaned; at other times the person claiming the copyright is making an invalid claim for any of a number of reasons. While I strongly support the continued inclusion of properly defined fair use material, I also make special note of the fact that there are numerous other provisions in the law that would succeed as well if not better to substantiate the free nature of specified texts and images.
Securing change in copyright law is a separate problem. It requires caution to insure that our status as a tax-exempt corporation will not be jeapordized by excessive participation in lobbying or other political activities. It does not stop any individual from relating his experiences as a Wikimedia editor. It does not stop us from discussing the directions that we would like legislators around the world to take in this direction, and arriving at a realistic synthesis that would balance interests on both sides of the copyright divide. After all one of the purposes of such law is to balance divergent interests. In the light of our broader mission what is worth more to us: limiting fair use in places that already have it, or seeking an expansion of fair dealing in places that apply it too restrictively?
Ec
Delirium wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of knowledge?
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in.
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
If there's a "good enough" fair use image, there is no incentive to find a Free replacement.
Fair use images can not be removed automatically, as they are intermingled with the text. It goes ok for most album covers, and book covers, but sometimes the images are an integral part of the text, or the text refers to the image.
On 1/18/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
teun spaans wrote:
So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading
of
knowledge?
I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in.
But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Marco Chiesa wrote:
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do.
That may be a part of Wikipedia policy relating to fair use, but it is not a part of the law of fair use.
Ec
2007/1/15, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
It's not a substitute, but I don't think it's worse. Fair use means that the picture can be used by Wikipedia on a specific page in a specific way because we don't need permission. Non-commercial means that Wikipedia can use it, as well as anyone using Wikipedia non-commercially, however they please because we have permission. I'm not happy with the second, but it surely is closer to what we want than the first.
Andre Engels wrote:
2007/1/15, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
It's not a substitute, but I don't think it's worse. Fair use means that the picture can be used by Wikipedia on a specific page in a specific way because we don't need permission. Non-commercial means that Wikipedia can use it, as well as anyone using Wikipedia non-commercially, however they please because we have permission. I'm not happy with the second, but it surely is closer to what we want than the first.
IMHO it's quite simple:
If we have a "fair use" image, any mirror with ads can use it at their peril, but we can't put it on a DVD.
If we have a "non-commercial" image, no mirror with with ads can use it, and we can't put it on a DVD.
If we have a "no derivatives" image, we're not allowed to thumbnail it to put it inline, crop it, recolour it, and neither are our mirrors with ads, and neither can these things be done to it when it goes on a DVD.
...
"Fair use" is a right granted by US law (and there are similar rights in some, not all countries) which means we can use it under *very specific* circumstances. It's not a Free image though.
"Non-commercial" has been widely propogated by the Creative Commons movement and people who think "Oh! I don't want my work exploited by some large company!", but it's still not a Free image (Erik and Rama have written essays and drawn cartoons, respectively, on this issue).
"No derivatives" is perhaps the worst of the lot: you're only allowed to use the image in the exact form that the creator provided it in. You gain very few freedoms - you can reuse it - and it's most definately not a Free image.
...
Fair use is rather a tricky one. It used to be that ONLY the English Wikipedia allowed them - perhaps because it was thought that most traffic would be from the USA (which has now been shown to be false) - but gradually more and more caved in. I believe that this is unacceptable - we should have a goal of removing ALL "fair use" images by 2008. Unfortunately we have literally hundreds of the things arriving every day - Commons is particularly bad because we take 100% of the uploads for es.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia (it appears that Spanish and Portuguese speakers are very fond of anime and US law and not very fond of reading instructions) - but every time I see that some other project is arguing "oh yes, allowing Fair Use would make us look so much better", or someone goes and replaces a 100% Free image with a Fair Use image "because it looks better", I want to reach out across the internet and strangle someone.
...
I joined Wikipedia (and the other Wikimedia projects) because I was intrigued by the idea of a FREE encyclopedia (dictionary, quote database, book collection, image repository, etc.), not just a user-filtered set of Google results stealing from everyone possible. Please, let's not EVER get to the point where we're sacrificing the fundamental ideals of freedom of content.
David Strauss wrote:
While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified.
Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?
Absolutely. The two concepts depend on entirely different threads of legal thinking.
I strongly support fair use/dealing, but fundamentally think that NC licences are based on a misapprehension that injects a kind of political statement into the licence.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org